12-11-1996 ARC PacketCITY OF MEIVDOTA FIEIGHTS
, ..�. , �. � �
. ,.
Decernb�r 11, 1996 - 7 p.�e. - Large Con#erence Roo�e
1. Call to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roii Call
r �,
�:� 3. Approval of November 13,1996 Meeting Minutes.
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Review Draft Contract for Third Parallel Runway (if available)
b. Discuss Non Simuitaneous Departure Procedures - FAA Letter
c. Review MSP Noise Mitigation Program
5. Updates
a. Airport Noise Report - Subscription
b. GAO Article - Airline Deregulation
6. Acknowledqe Receipt of Various Reg�orts/Correspondence•
a. MASAC Agenda for December 3 and October 22, 1996 Minutes
b. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for August, September and
October
c. IVIASAC Complaint Summary for October 1996
d. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for August and October
1996
e. Part 150 Buyout Update - Issue 35
f. NOISE Conference in Minnesota
g. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for December 10, 1996
h. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition Minutes of
October 15, 1996
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
: �..
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice
of less than 720 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the
aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-
1$50 with requests
r"
�
R. P LI'� �RT'S � IS�I T�
2�PPt'S S4jtirA Minneapolis-Saint Paul InternatYonal Airport
F2 t°� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
� o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
pt � t N
o N
° F
o r t G �y.
9� 41RPORY�
November 21, 1996
Senato� Keith Langseth
Co-Chai� - State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning
�-2� �aN��c!
St. Paul, MN 55155
Representative Bernie Leider
Co-Chair - State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning
G24 Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Senator Langseth and Representative �eider:
Enclosed, per the provisions of MS 473.661, Subd. 4(f), is a report from the Metropolitan
Airports Commission containing recommendations for noise mitigation at Minneapolis-St. Paul
( ) International Airport. The recommendations contained in this report were approved by the
�" Metropolitan Airports Commission at its meeting on October 28, 1996, and were developed
with the assistance of the MSP Mitigation Committee. This committee consisted of the
mayors of the affected communities adjacent to MSP and representatives of the MAC,
Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, and Northwest Airlines.
r ��
We would be pleased to make a formal presentation of this report to the State Advisory
Council at your convenience. Please contact me if you wish to schedule such a presentation.
S�r.orolv� °
_ }
r,
. � �
i� �,�� /7 �_ f;l.�?.,^-:'�� 'i
f �� _ ./�,� A/�� �/ .
/ h
�effrey W. Hamiel
Executive Director
Enclosure - 30 reports
cc: MAC Commissioners w/o attachment
MSP Mitigation Committee w/o attachment
Nigel Finney, MAC �
David Dombrowski, MAC
The P letropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIRLAF:E • ANOKA COUNT}'i�I..�.I\E • CR�'STAL • PLTING CLOUD • i.AhE EL.\t0 • SAIiVT PAUL DOWNTOWN
�,
C
� �C►Pt�LTTl� t�i t�I�.TS ����v�IS�I��
�,5 Sq, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
P � �L
?�P + tr 9� 6040 -.28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
� `o Phone (612) 726-8100 � Fax (612) 726-5296
� t + �,
� � �
o_
o� F
�, �
r 1' G
9� 41RPORY� � .
TO: MAC Commissioners
MSP Mitigation Committee
Metropolitan Council Members
MASAC
Policy Advi�ary Committee - Part 150 Program
FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment
RE: MSP NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM
DATE: Noverriber 26, 1996 .
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the MSP Mitigatian Report. The attached
document contains the results of the work complete o bh recommenda'tions of
Committee and the action taken by the MAC in response
the Mitigation Committee.
As required by statute, this report will be forwarded to the State Advisory Council on
Metropolitan . Airport Planning. This group has 60 days following receipt of the
recommendations to review the report and comment to the legislature.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the report.
l ��
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIItLAKE • ANO�` COLJNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAIN'P PAUL DOWNTOWN
C�
�
� � 1 � � .1 .
December 9, 1996
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Admvu
Subject: Unf'uiished and New Business Items on December 11, 1996 Agenda
DISCUSSION
l. Review of Draft Contract for 7.'hird Paral%1 Runway
It is hoped that by Wednesda.y evening, there will be a draft copy of the contract for the
Third Parallel Runway for the Commission to review. As of this writing, it has been
promised by MAC's legal staff to arrive on Monday, but it has not yet available.
Last week on December 4, 1996, Mendota. Heights was able to reach preliminary
agreement with MAC over the terms and conditions of a contract giving the City
approval authority over the construction of a third parallel runway. The negotiations
lea.ding up to this point have been lengthy and intense. Originally, it was hoped that it
would be a joint contract with the City of Minneapolis, Mendota. Heights and MAC.
However, for political reasons, Minneapolis is not able to reach the same agreement
with MAC that Mendota. Heights finds acceptable. With Minneapolis' blessing,
Mendota Heights is attempting to move ahead with a signed agreement before the
December 31, 1996 dea.dline under the theory that some agreement is necessary.
Minneapolis may continue to negotiate more diff'icult terms with MAC, but at least
Mendota Heights can lock up the third parallel runway. (See attached statute language.)
On Wednesday evening, I will be prepared to review the terms of the agreement and
outline the negotiations that have taken place to date.
2. Non-Simultaneous Departure I'�ocedures
Drafts of our letters to the FAA, MAC and Congressional Representatives will be
available to review and comment on Wednesda.y evening.
3 o MSP Mitigation Program
At the previous meeting, the Airport Relations Commission desired to know more
about the process and the implementa.tion of the MSP Mitigation Progra�ua since it was
( ) adopted by MAC in October. Enclosed with this agenda. are copies of the full MSP
�.
�
C
�
Mitigation Prograni, as approved. The program is to be reviewed by the Sta.te
Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Plann�ng, as indicated in the cover letter by
Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of MAC.
4, A.irport Noise l�eport
Attached is a copy of the Airport Noise Report, as requested by the Commission. The
annual subscription for tivs newsletter is $495. If the Commission is interested in
receiving the newsletter, they should make a recommendation to City Council to
authorize this subscription and to budget for its cost.
�0?i25i96 13:29 EXECTIUE i 612 452 8940
1
/ ■�• �►
` �taurtes 199�. se�iao� �?3.6U8, is �'"�� �Y ��g a subdivision tn
�ec. 10. l�in�esota .
read: PA�tA��L B�i�WAY. (a) The cor�- ,
Subd. 29. C�NSTRUG�ION OF ��D - �e co rai�oa mav �oL
tion must enter into a contraet with each aff �� ia�� • �Qithout the
.. . , _�_,._� .�.,..vev 9t the M3Iit18� _ _ ..r �._ L._ s.,.,,,.�rv t _ 199i.
� � �) �) � '8 COIlt13� W1f11 S
� 199?. as a resuit of the o
0
�
0
( �)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
�
December 9, 1996
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
SUBJECT: GAO Article on Airiine Deregulation
. •:
Mayor Mertensotto has requested that 1 forward a copy of this GAO Report
to each member of the Airport Relations Commission.
None. This item is for information purposes only.
: ^
C
r -
��
. GAO:. �
. .... .� ... ..4
. �..i. _. .f_.,_ .. } .. ....
; October 1996
:� �,
,.
�
c i
_...... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. ... .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .... _._.. .._... .. _. .
.'
�
�
�. %
� �i
United Statea
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
R.esources, Community, az►d
Economic Development Division
i :
Octaber 18, 1996
The Honorable Larry Pressler
Chaiiman, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation �
United Sta.tes Senate
Dear Mr. Chairinan:
Earlier this year, in a report prepared at your request, we reported that,
overall, airfares have decreased and service has improved since the
deregulation of the airline industry in 1978.' A key factor contributing to
this trend has been the increased competition spurred by the entry of
(1) new airlines into the industry and (2) established airlines into new
markets. Nevertheless, we also found that a number of airports, primarily
in the Southeast and upper Midwest, have not experienced such entry and
therefore ha.ve not e�erienced the lower fares and improved service that
deregulation has brought to the rest of the nation.
Our April 1996 report was the latest in a series of studies over the past
deca.de in which we have examined competition in the deregulated airline
industry.z In August 1990, we reported that several operating and
marketing practices, such as incumbent airlines leasing airport gates under
long-term, exclusive-use terms, ha.d begun to restrict entry to an extent not
fully anticipated by the Congress when it deregulated the industry.3 In
1991, we reported that many of these barriers to entry contributed to
higher fares.4 Concerned about our finding earlier this year that some
communities have not shared in the economic benefits of deregtalation,
you asked us to update our work on barriers to entry. Specifically, you
asked us to determine if barriers still exist that prevent
airlines—pazticularly those airlines that started after deregulation—from
serving new markets and, if so, how these barriers have affected a.ixfares
and service.
'Airiine Deregulation: Changes in Airfazes, Seivice, and Safety at Small, Medium-Sized, and Large
Communities (GAO/RCED-96-79, Apr. 19, 1996).
�I'hese products are listed at the end of this report.
�Airline Competition Industry Operating and Marketing Practices Limit Market Entry
(GAO/RCED-90-147, Aug. 29, 1990).
'Airline Competition Effects of Airline Market Concenhation and Barriers w Entry on Airfares
(GAO/RCED-91-101, Apr. 26, 1991). �
Parte 1
GAO/ItCED-97-4 Barriers to EnUy in the Airline Indnstry
`
B-272128 ---.__._-_
Results in Brief B�e� to entry persist in the �.�e indus
continues to be impeded by (1) federallimi on takeoff andiandi.ng slots
at the major airports in Chicago, New York, and Washington,6
(2) long-term, exclusive-use gate leases; and (3) "perimeter rules"
prohibiting flights at New York's La,Guardia and Washington's National
airPorts that exceed a certain distarl�e, Whiie �ese operating baxriers can
potentially a.ffect any airiine, t11ey prir��y �ect airiines that were
started after deregulation. The newer air]ines are affected the most
because the established cairiers hold nearly all of the slots, are usually the
beneficiaries of exclusive-use gate leases, and have their hubs loca.ted
close enough to La.Guardia and National that their operations are not
limited by perimeter ruies. These barriers particularly impede the entry of
newer airlines into key markets in the East and upper Midwest beca.use
several airports in those regions have leased most of their gates to one
airline.
Even where airport access is not a problem, a,ir]ines sometimes choose not
to enter new markets beca.use certain strate�gies of the established airiines
make it extremely difficult for other carriers to attract traffic. These
marketing strategies include bonus commi.ssions paid to travel agents,
<< .
frequent flier plans, airline ownership of the computer reservation systems
used by travel agents, and code-sharing partnerships v�,ith commuter
carriers.s Taken together, these marketing stra.tegies deter new as well as
established airlines from entering those markets where an estab]ished
airline is dominan� As a result, competition suffers, leading to higher
airfares. The effect of these strategies tends to be the greatest and fares
the highest—in markets where the dominant cairier's position is protected
by operating barriers. On the other hand, measuring the effects of barriers
to entry on the quality of service is more difficult, yVhile ba�rie� reduce
the number of competing service options, consumers receive benefits in
other ways, such as free frequent flier trips.
Ba,CkgrQl�d Before 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board controlled the number of
ma.rkets that established a.irlines could enter and prevented new airlines
from fonning, Concerned that these pra.ctices had caused fares to be too
sTo minimize flight delays, the Federal Aviation Administration limits the number of operations i
(takeoffs and landings) t}�at can o��. du�.ing certain periods of the day at four congested
�PortS—O'Hare in Chicago, National in Washic�tuiy D.C., and Kennedy and LaGuarctia in New York
The authority to conduct a single operation during these periods at th� fo�. �o� y� common�y
referred to as a "slot"
6Code-sharin8 is the practice whereby one airline lists another air]ine s IIights � i� o� � computer
reservation systems. �,
�.� •'. . ... .
Page 2 _ GAtO/BCED-97-4 Barriers to En `:� �. :: .
tT9 in the rliriine Indnstry` ,,:: �.
`
8-2�2i2s
high and inhibited the industry's growth, the Congress passed the .Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978. The act phased out federal control of domestic
air service and relied on market forces to decide fares and levels of
service.
Since deregulation, established airlines have expanded into many new
markets and numerous new airlines ha.�e started up. Many of these new
airlines began operations shortly after deregulation and have since failed;
some esta.blished carriers, such as Eastern and Pan Am, aLso failed.
Nevertheless, a few airlines that were formed during this period still
operate, including America West, Midwest Express, and Southwest.' The
majority of the airlines that have started service since deregulation,
however, ha.ve come into being in the past few years, primarily as the
result of a growing economy and large supplies of less-expensive used
airplanes and available pilots. As a result, their cost structures tend to be
lower than those of the esta,blished airlines. In generai, the 38 airlines that
have started up since deregulation, and which operated during 1995, are
much smaller in terms of the number of passengers, the size of their fleets,
and their financial resources than the 10 established carriers, which
include the 7 largest airlines--American, Continental, Delta, Northwest,
TWA, United, and USAir. (See app. I.)
Opera.tlllg Br`�'I`1erS Operating barriers still limit entry at a number of important airports, and
in some cases they ha.ve grown worse since our report in 1990. For
Continue to Block the example, a few established airlines ha.�e further increased their control
E11t1'�7 Of NeW over takeoff and landing slots at the slot-controlled airports in Chica.go,
COII"l et1tOTS ll1 New York, and Washington. As a result, little new entry has occurred at
p these airports. Opportunities for esta.blishing new or expanded service
Eastern and Upper also continue to be limited at other airports by long-term, exclusive-use
Midwestern Markets �ate leases that prevent nonincumbents from securing the necessary
airport facilities on equal terms with tY►e incumbent airlines. While such
arrangements exist at many airports across the country, their
predominance at several important airports in the East and upper Midwest
exacerbates the negative impact of slots on competition in those regions.
��� ��
' �Although Southwest started in 1971, it provided air service only within Texas.'Ihe airline did not
�- % provide interstate service untii after deregulation
Page 3 � C:AO/S.CEA9?-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnatry
Control of Slots by a Few
Airlines Greatly Deters
Entry at Key Airports in
Chicago, New York, and
Washington
�
B-27212s
To reduce congestion during peak fra�c periods, Fan has since 1969 set
limits on the number of takeoffs and landings that can occur at four key
airports-0'Hare, National, Kennedy, and La.Guardia. By allowing new
airlines to form and esta.blished airlines to enter new markets,
deregulation increased the demand for access to these airports. Such
increased demand complicated F�'s efforts to allocate ta.keoff and landing
slots equita.bly among the airlines. As a result, to *ninimi�e the
government's role in the allocation of slots, the Depart,nlent of
Transportation (Dcrr) amended its rules in 1985 to allow airiines to buy and
sell them to one another.
Under this "Buy/Sell Rule," DOT alloca.ted slots to the holders of record as
of December 16, 1985--that is, the incumbents' allocations were
"grandfathered." Emphasizing that it stili owned the slots, however, Do•r
randomly assig7ned each slot a priority number and reserved the right to
withdra.w slots from the incumbents at any time. In addition, to mitigate
the anticompetitive effects of gra.ndfathering, noT retained about 5 percent
of the slots at O'Hare, National, and LaGuardia and in early 1986
distributed them in a random lottery to airlines ha.ving few or no slots at
those airports.$
In 1986, we expressed concern that allowing airlines to buy and sell slots
would reduce competition.9 By the early 1990s, we found that a few
carriers had increased their control of slots to such an extent that they
could limit access to routes beginning or ending at any of the
slot-controlled airports—airports tha,t are crucial to establishing new
service in the heavily tra,veled eastern and midwestern markets.10 We also
reported that while the lottery was successful in placing slots in the hands
of some entrants and smaller incumbents, the effect on entry over the long
term was disappointing, in part because many of the lottery winners
subsequently went out of business or merged with an established carrier.
Since the early 1990s, a few established carriers ha.ve continued to build
upon the favorable positions they inherited as a result of grandfathering
eKe��dY �'port was not included in the lottery because DOT considered its slots already to be
distributed equitably among the au.lines, thereby ensuring adequate competition
9Airline Takeoff and Landing Slots Department of Z7ransportation's Slot Allocarion Ru1e
(GAO/RCED-$6-92, dan 31, 1986).
loAirline
and Barriers to Enhy on Airfares
Page 4
and Marketing Practices Limit
GAI�/R.CED-97-4 $arriers to Entry in the Airline Induatry
�
Table 1: Percentage of Domestic Air
Carrier Slots Heid by Selected Groups
in 1986, 1991, and 1996
8-272128
(see table 1). By contrast, the share held by the airlines that started after
deregulation has remained low.
Percentage held
Airport/holding entity 1M/86 1/1/91 6/17/96
O'Hare
American and United 66 83 87
Other established airlines 28 13 9
Financial institutions 0 3 2
Post-deregulation airiines 6 1 1
Kennedy
Shawmut Bank, American, and Delta 43 60 75
Other established airlines 49 18 13
Other financial institutions 0 19 6
Post-deregulation airlines � g 3 7
LaGuardia
American, Delta, and USAir 27 43 64
Otner established airiines 58 39 14
Financial institutions 0 7 20
Post-deregulation airiines 15 12 2
National
American, Deita, and USAir 25 43 59
Other established airlines 58 42 20
Financiai institutions 0 7 19
Post-deregulation airiines 1� 8 3
Note 1: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Note 2: Severai airlines that held slots have gone bankrupt, and in part as a result of the
bankruptcy proceedings, some financial institu6ons have acquired slots. At Kennedy, for
example, Shawmut Bank hoids the siots operated by TWA. Similariy, in addition to purchasing
slots, the incumbent airlines have buiif up lheir siot holdings as a result of the bankruptcies of
other airiines as weil as through mergers with other airiines.
Saurce: GAO's analysis of data from FAA's Slot Administration Office.
Beca.use the number of slots is largely fixed and the holding of those slots
is concentra.ted among a few esta�lilished carriers, a seller's market has
emerged, and slots have become very expensive. F� officials and
numerous airline representa.tives told us that the price of a slot has risen
sharply over the last decade; they estimated that the price now exceeds
$2 million for a peak-period slot and $500,000 for an off-peak �slot.
Page 6 - GAOBCED-97-4 Barriers to EntrY in the Au'line Industry
B-272128
��
Moreover, in order to mount competitive service in a market, an airline
generally needs about six slots, with at least three slots fa7ling ciuring the
�► peak periods so that the airiine can offer a flight schedule that is attractive ,,,,�c
to business travelers. As a result, for the a.irlines that started after
deregulation, the cost of purchasing the slots necessary to compete '
effectively may be prohibitive.
Even if financing can be �..�ged, buying slots is extremely difficult for
newer airlines because the established carriers rarely sell their slots, and
when they do, the buyer is usually an airline that already holds a large
number of slots at the airport. United Airiines' director of domestic
schedules told us, for exa.rnple, that the airline has not sold a slot at O'Hare
in the past 4 years. Likewise, the airline last sold slots at La,Guardia and
National in 1993. In the latter two sales, the purchaser was USAir—already
a m�jor holder of slots at LaGuardia and National(see table 1).
Nevertheless, the airlines that hold inost of the slots at the four airports
stressed to us that in building upon their grancifathered positions, they
have invested a large amount of money buying additional slots and
finaz►cing the development and expansion of those airports. Both the chief
executive officer (cEo) and the president of American Airiines emphasized (
to us, for example, that American and United ha.ve invested hundreds of �
millions of dollars in f�nancing the development and expansion of
Chicago's O'Hare Airport.
The m�jor holders of slots atso noted that, as an alternative to buying
slots, an airline can lease them from another airline. However, leasing
places a nonowner at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. F'irst,
beca.use the esta.blished airlines obtained most of their slots directly from
Fnt+ in 1986 at no cost, the nonincumbent incurs a cost tha,t the esta.blished
carrier has never incurred." Second, leases are sometimes for only a short
period of time. Under the use-or-lose provision of the Buy/Sell Rule,
airlines must use a slot at least 80 percent of the time or it will be revoked
by FnA. Hence, to meet this requirement and still protect their slots, the
incumbent airiines lease unused slots to other airlines, but only on a
short term basis. At our request, Fnn reviewed the leases that were in
effect as of July 15, 1996, and found that about 10 percent were for less
than 30 days and that another 12 percent were for between 31 and 89 days.
While a carrier already opera.ting at an airport ma,y be able to add �lights
using slots leased for a short term, a new enirant can generally not justiiy
i�In addition, because airlines are allowed to a eat slots as private assets, even though they are a public ( �
good, several established airlines have used them as collateral in securing loans.
Page 6 - GAO/gCED-97-4 Bari3ers to En
trY in the A.irline Indnstry
B-272128
the costs of sta.riang new service if its only access to an airport could be
terminated on short notice by a potential competitor.
In our August 1990 report, we suggested several options that could open
up the slot market and promote entry. These included (1) replacing the
Buy/Sell Rule with a system in which no�r leases slots to the airlines or
(2) retaining the Buy/Sell Rule but periodically withdrawing a portion of
slots from each carrier and reallocating them by lottery. Many
representatives of post-deregulation airlines and airport and government
officials that we interviewed—including the manager of F�'s Ai.rspace and
Air Traffic Law Branch as well as airport officials in Chicago and New
York—expressed skepticism that the Buy/Sell Rule was worlang as
intended and commented that the options we have suggested are sti]1
valid. In 1994, for example, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
reitera.ted to Dar its support for a periodic slot lottery:
"As a means to improve access for new air carrier entrants, we have previously proposed a
modest withdrawal of au' camer slots, not to exceed 3 percent on an annual basis, for
reallocation to new enirants and small incumbents by lottery. ... the Fnt+ is urged to
consider this option which would improve the competitive environment, but would not
seriously compromise existing oPerahons•"
---__. _.._._._—. —
Congressional Efforts to Recognizing t.he need for new entry at the slot controlled airports, in 1994
SpuT Eltt2y at the Congress directed nar to (1) study whether slot controls were still
SlOt-COIZtT011ed AirpOrts needed and (2) grant exemptions from those controls—in effect, issue new
slots—for new entrants see�ng to serve either O'Hare, LaGuardia, or
Have Had Limited Success Kennedy when nar "finds it to be in the public interest and the
circumstances to be exceptional."12 In part, the Congress was responding
to the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline
Industry, which in 1993 recommended that the slot controls be reviewed
"with the aim of either removing these artificial limits or raising them to
the highest practical level consistent with safety requirements."13
In its congressionally directed study, voz' found that eliminating slots
would not affect safety and would result in increased competition, thereby
'ZF'AA Reauthorization Act of 1994 (P.L 103�305, sec. 206)• The number of flights at Nationai Au'Port �s
further limited by federal law to address local concerns about noise. As a result of these additional
limits, the Congress chose not to extend DOT°s exempbon authority to include National.
"A Beport to the President Change, Challenge, and Competition, The National Commiss�ion to Ens�u�e
a Strong Competitive Airline Indusiry (Aug. 1993).
Page 7 , GAO/HCED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
B-272128
lowering fares and expanding air service options for consumers,l' DOT
estimated that the annual net benefit to consumers from lower fazes and
new service—after accounting for the costs to air travelers of increased
delays--wouid be $626 million at O'Hare, $89 million at La.Guardia,
�26 million at National, and $7 million at Kennedy. Nevertheless, it
concluded that eliminating slots would not be in the public interest
because the projected benefits to consumers would be outweighed by the
negative impacts on the incumbent airlines in terms of flight delays and
reduced profits "when the fare premiurrt presently charged at three of the
four airports (O'Hare, La.Guardia, and National) is lost due to increased
competition."
The Congress's d.irection to Dor that the agency grant exemptions from the
slot controls to new entrants when Dor finds it to be in the public interest
and the circumsta.nces to be exceptional has resulted in little new entry.
Few new entries ha.ve occurred because DOT has interpreted the
"exceptional circunnsta.nces" criterion narrowly and has rejected
applications to provide service in those markets aiready receiving nonstop
service. As of October 1996, Dor had rejected two of the four requests that
it received, despite the competitive benefits for consumers tha,t would ��
resuit from allowing a nonincumbent to challenge an incumbent's
monopoly in a market.
In rejecting a request by Western Pacific in 1995 for four slots to start
service between Colorado Springs and O'Hare, for example, Dcrr
emphasized that United Airlines aiready provided nonstop service.
Because of this existing service, the agency concluded that exceptional
circumstances did not exist. vor officials told us that, in t1�eu. �ew,
Chicago's Midway Airport provided Western Pacific an adequate
alternative to O'Hare. Western Pacific's cEo told us tha.t the airline str.ongly
disa.grees with noT and has petitioned the agency to reconsider its
decision.
Do'r also rejected a bid by Spirit Airlines in 1995 to fly between Detroit and
I.aGuardia beca.use Northwest already provided nonstop service. Dor
exPlained as follows:
"We have interpreted the intent of Congress narrowly because of the exceptionai
circumstances criterion. If Congess had intended that a less restrictive allocation process
be established, it wouid have mandated that the grant of exemptions be based only on a
public interest finding. ... While we recognize that Congress did not explicitly mandate
_ _ _.
"Report to the Congress A Study of ffie High Density Rule, DOT �.
(MaY 1995).
Page 8 _ GAO/RCED-97-4 Barriers to En
trY in the Airline Indnstry
s
'\, t
Long-Term, Exclusive-Use
Gate Leases Also Continue
to Hinder Airline Entry
��
B-272128
that exceptional carcumstances be applied only in situations where no nonstop service
presently e�sted, it is clear from the legislative background that the lack of nonstop
service in larger markets was clearly on the minds of several supporters with regard to ttie
exemption provisions."I6
In our review of the legislative history, however, we found no
congressional guidance on the interpretation of the exceptional
circumstances criterion. Moreover, by selecting a very narrow
interpreta.iaon, vo'r has discouraged entry, according to senior
management at many airlines tha.t started after deregulation. They told us
that DOT's nairow interpreta.tion of the exceptional circumstances criterion
discouraged them from applying for slots. Many noted, for example, that
they would not "waste the time" anplying to no'r for slots in markets where
an incumbent carrier already provided nonstop service. They suggested
that competition could be substantaally increased in some markets if the
Congress revised the exemption criteria so that applications resulting in
substantial competitive benefits are allowed. Officials from both the
Chicago Department of Aviation and the Port Authority of New York &
New Jersey stated that they strongly supported such a move.
In 1990, our survey of the 661argest U.S. airports revealed that 85 percent
of their gates were leased to established airlines under long-term,
exclusive-use leases. At some airports, every gate was under an
exclusive-use lease. We concluded that such leases limited entry because,
in order to gain access to the aixport, a nonincumbent would generally
have to sublease gates from the incumbent airlines—often at less
prefera.ble times and at a higher cost than the incumbent pays on the
master lease. Since then, some airports, such as Los Angeles Interna.tional,
have sought to regain more control of their facilities by signing less
restrictive, shorter-term leases when the exclusive-use leases expire.
Nevertheless, senior management at many airlines that started after
deregulation told us that long-term, exclusive-use gate leases continue to
be a barrier to entry. They identified six airports in particulaz where this
occurs: Charlotte, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis, Newark, and
pittsbuigh. As table 2 shows, the vast ma�jority of gates at ea.ch airport are
exclusively leased, usually to one established airline. .As a result, according
to executives at many airlines that started after deregulation, it is
extremely difficult to gain competitive access to these airports.
'fiOrder DerU�ing Request for bcemption, Application of Spirit Airlines, Inc., DOT iOST 96-266, Aug. 24,
1995).
Page 9
Gr1�p/JICED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
Table 2: Airports Where
Post-Deregulation Airiines Reported
Difficulty Gaining Competitive Access
to Gates, and the Leasing
Arrangements at Those Airports
�
��
_ .
__. _ .
__. . - -- -- _.. __.. _---
B-272128 —_ ---- --. _.. __. _
Total Gates under
number of exclusive- Major lease holder and date of lease
Airport jet gates use leases expirations
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Detroit
Minneapolis
Newark
48 43 34 gates leased to USAir until 2007
67 67 50 gates leased to Deita with 9 leases
expiring in 2015 and 41 expiring in 2023
86 76 64 gates leased to Northwest until the end
of 2008, with ail but 10 under
exciusive-use terms
65
94 `
75
65 49 gates leased to Northwest with 16
leases already having expired and now on
month-to-month basis, and remainder
expiring at variaus times ranging from the
end of 1997 to 2015
79 43 gates leased to Continental until 2013,
36 gates leased to the other estabiished
airiines untii 2018, and 15 gates reserved
primarily for internationai use
66 50
Source: GAO's presentation of the airports' data.
tes leased to USAir until 2018
The airports in Detroit, Newark, and Minneapolis were most frequently
cited by the airlines that started after deregulation as having competition
limited by constraints in gaining access to gates. OfficiaLs at these three
airports expressed their strong support of efforts by nonincumbents to
obta.in gates. Officials at Detroit and Newark told us that several low-fare
a.irlines currently sublease gates from incumbent carriers at their airports_
Moreover, acknowledging tha,t competition has been very limited at his
airport, the director of the Minneapolis airport indicated that the airport
authority attempted in 1991 to take control of one gate left vacant by the
banlavptcy of Midway Airlines so that it could lease it to nonincumbents
on an as-needed basis. However, Northwest Airl.ines was successfui in
gai.ning control of the gate. The federal courts held that Northwest couid
be assigned the gate by the bankniptcy tn�stee, despite the objections of
the airport commission.ls The airport director also told us tha,t
Northwest's leases on 16 gates have expired and that he has notified the
airline of the airport authority's right to reclaim the gates on a month's
notice to accommodate a new entrant. He also noted that over the next
several years, the airport w� b�d 6 to 12 new gates, of which 3 to 5 yvill
be held for lease to nonincumbents.
16Matter of Midway Airlines� i�c., 6 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1993).
Page 10
GAO/SCED-97-4 Bnrriera to Entry in the t�it.line Indnstry
B-272128
Where nonincumbents have gained access to airports by subleasing gates,
the access has generally come at less preferable times or at a high cost.
The low-fare airline Jet1'rain, for example, was initially able to secure
access to gates at Newark only by subleasing gates from United at times
that usually did not conflict with United's schedule. Effectively, this
situation has meant that Jet'I`rain has often been compelled to opera.te at
inconvenient, off-peak times, or even not at all. In addition, Jet`1'rain
subsequently attempted to lease at least three additional gates from
United. Before Jet'I�ain could arrange the financing it needed, however,
another established carrier subleased the gates from United. According to
JetTrain's vice president of marketing and planr►ing, the uncertainties
associated with adequate access to gates has seriously affected the
airline's ability to grow and compete at Newark. In other cases, airlines
that started after deregulation have subleased gates as part of a broader,
more costly arrangement with an esta.blished carrier. The cEo of Vanguard
Airlines noted, for example, that the airline subleases a gate from TWA in
Minneapolis. In turn, TWA performs maintenance for Vanguard's aircraft.
ftepresentatives from other airlines that started after deregulation told us
that they strongly prefer not to sublease gates beca.use the established
airlines typically insist that the sublessee use the esta.blished airlines'
ground personnel, which artificially raises costs and may reduce
efficiency. The cEo of Southwest Airlines told us that this was a key factor
�C in his decision not to serve Minneapolis. In part beca.use airlines that
n sublease tend to o erate at a com etitive disadvan
p p ta.ge, new entries that
depended on subleasing gates have ha.d mixed results. For exa.mple,
Jetfirain recently decided to exit Newark completely, and Vanguard
recently stopped serving one of the two markets that it was serving from
Minneapolis.
Esta.blished airlines, on the other hand, stressed to us that they ha.ve ma.de
substantial investments in the development of these airports. Northwest
Airlines' senior vice president for corporate affairs commented, for
exa.mple, that without esta.blished airlines' investments, many airport
expansion projects tha.t benefit new and established airlines alike would
not be possible. He and executives at other esta.blished airlines sta.ted that
signing long-term, exclusive-use gate leases is a key element in their
decisions to help finance airport expansion projects. Similarly, several
airport directors noted that it would have been difficult to sell the revenue
bonds needed to finance development and expansion at their airports
without a clear, long-term financial commitment from at least one
established airline.
Page 11 _ GAO/RCED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnatry
.Air Travel in the East and
Upper Midwest Is Most
Affected by Slot Controls
and Lack of Access to
Gates
B-272128
In our 1990 report, we noted that the development, ma.intenance, and
expar�sion of airport facilities is essentially a local responsibility. We
further noted, however, that most airports are opera.ted under restrictions
tied to the receipt of federal grants from F.�,. We suggested tha.t one way to
alleviate the barrier created by exclusive-use leases would be for FaA to
add a grant restriction that ensured that some gates at an airport would be
available to nonincumbents. During our current review, several a.irline and
airport representa.tives suggested that a more feasible alternative would be
for F�n, when disbursing grant monies for airport improvements, to give
priority for grants to those aarports that do not lease the vast m�jority of
their gates to one airline under long-term, exclusive-use terms or that at
least set aside some "entrepreneurial" gates to attract new entrants.
Officials in F�a,'s Airports Financial Assistance Division told us that they
do not consider auports' gate-leasing arrangements when maldng grant
decisions.
Overall, the 10 airports where competition among airlines is limited by
slots and exclusive-use gate leases accounted for approxiina.tely
115 million (22 percent) of the 516 million scheduled airline passenger
enplanements last year. Moreover, because each of these constrained
airports is located in either the East or upper Midwest (see fig. 1), the
barriers to entry presented by slots and exclusive-use gate leases
disproportiona.tely affect air travel in those regions.
Page 12
GAU/RCED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
�
( .
�
1:
�orts identified as Havin
$-272128
Limited Entry Due to Slot Controls and Exclusive-Use Gate Leases
Minneapol(s
'� S►ot-controiled alrports
� Gate constrafned airports
Special Rules at LaGuardia
and National and Emerging
Capacity Constra.ints
Elsewhere Exacerbate
Barriers' Impacts
(� j
,�-
�
LaGuardia
iy
Entry at La.Guardia and National, besides being limited by slots, is further
limited by rules that pmhibit incoming and outgoing flights that exceed a
certain dista,nce. These are commonly known as "perimeter rules." At
LaGuardia, under a rule esta.blished by the Port Authority, nonstop flights
exceeding 1,500 miles are prohibited. At National, federallaw limits the
number of hourly operations and prohibits nonstop flights exceeding 1,260
miles."
��'The Metropolitan Washmgton Airports Act of 1986 (P.I.. 99�591, sec. 60). The rule is aLso inciuded in
federai regiilahons (24 C.F.R sec. 93253).
Page 13 — GAOB,CEU.97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
B-272128
The perimeter rules are designed to promote Kennedy and Dulles airports,
respectively, as the designated long-haul airports for the New York and
Washington metropolitan areas. The practical effect, however, is to limit
entry and exacerbate the impact of slots. Specifically, the rules keep the
second largest airline started after deregulation—America. West—from
serving La.Guardia and National via nonstop flights from its hub in
Phoenix. By contrast, all of the seven largest esta.blished carriers are able
to serve those airports nonstop from their main hubs beca.use of the hubs'
proximity to La.Guardia and National. Whi.le aclrnowledging tha.t the
perimeter rule at National ma.y put America West at a competitive
disadvantage, the cEo and general manager of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority expressed concern that completely
eliminating the perimeter rule would, among other things, negatively affect
air service to smaller communities in the Northeast because the major slot
holders at National would likely shift much of their service to more
profitable long-haul routes.
F`inally, numerous airline representaxives expressed concern that growing
capacity constraints at several other airports, particularly in the.East and
upper Midwest, are exa.cerbating the impacts of the barriers to entry that
we have identified. Two airports in particular—Boston's Logan and
Chicago's Midway—were frequently cited. Several airlines noted tha.t their
ability to start or expand services in the East was constrained by the
congestion and limited facilities at Logan. Likewise, numerous airlines that
started after deregulation told us that, along with gates, available counter
and office space at Midway Airport was becoming increasingly scarce,
thereby limifang their ability to serve new markets. The Chicago
Department of Aviation agreed with their assessment. The department's
marketing director noted that the demand for space, particularly by
low-fare airlines, was so great at Midway that airlines must now meet a
minimum threshold of six daily flights before the department will lease
facilities to them. As a result, the extent to which Midway A.irport can
serve as an alternative for airlines that are unable to obtain slots ai O'fIare
is becoming increasingly limited.
'�Y1.� �SO �OT1tlIlUeS The marketing strategies that airlines developed following deregulation
ha.ve created strong loyalties among �passengers and travel agents and have
to Be Limited by the greatly increased the cost of competing airlines' entry into new markets.
Combinaiion of 'I`Wo strategies in particulaz, booldng incentives for travel agents and
Several Airline frequent flier plans, are targeted at business flyers and encourage them to
use the dominant carrier in each market. Because business travelers
Marketing Practices represent the most profitable segment of the industry, airlines in many
Page 14 _ GAlO/RCED-9?-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
C�
�
B-272128
cases have chosen not to enter, or quickly exit, mazkets where they do not
believe they can overcome these barriers and attract a sufficient amount
of business tra£fic.
Booking Incentives for Business passengers represent the most lucrative segment of the domestic
'Iravel Agents Limit a.irline market. Many esta,blished airlines with whom we spoke, for
Competition for Business e�pie, estimated that passengers traveling on business represented less
�.�� C than 40 percent of their traffic but accounted for between 50 and
70 percent of their revenues. Because about 90 percent of business travel
is booked through travel agencies, airlines strive to influence the agencies'
booking patterns. For established carriers, such efforts typically include
tne payment to travel agencies of special bonus commissions—frequently
referred to as overrides—as a reward for boo�ng a targeted proportion of
passengers on their airline.
� While anq airline can offer travel agencies these payments, esta.blished
cazriers can make more effective use of this technique than the smaller
airlines beca.use the extra commissions are often based on the total
volume of business that an agency books for the a.irline. Moreover,
according to many travel agencies and airlines tha.t started after
deregulation, most established carriers have greater resources available to
purchase and analyze the data. generated by the computer reservation
systems (cxs) that travel agents use to book flights. As a result, the
established carriers can more easily monitor travel agents' boolang
patterns and ta.rget their commission programs accordingly. The cEo of
one esta.blished airline noted, however, that the cxs data are available to
any airline that wishes to purchase them and is willing to invest ttie
resources necessary to analyze the data..
Concerned about the potential anticompetitive effects of overrides, the
Justice Department opened an investigation in 1994 to determine if their
use coristiitutes an antitrust violation—either the monopolization of a
relevant market or agreements in unreasonable restraint of tra.de. As part
of its investigation, the Justice Department collected industrywide data on
airline boolangs and override payments. However, the Department's
analysis of the da.ta, was una,ble to show thax dominant carriers had been
able to use overrides to create a disadvantage for smaller carriers or to
prevent entry into domestic airline markets. The Justice Depariment
therefore closed its antitr�st investigation in October 1996.
Page 16 _ GA01$CED-9?-4 Barriera to Entcy in the Airline Indnatry
�
B-272128
Even if the payment of overrides does not violate the antitrust laws, the
practice does discourage entry. Numerous airlines that started after
deregulation told us fiha.t they have discontinued certain routes beca.use
the ma,jor travel agency in each market would book passengers only on the
dominant carrier, fram which the agency receives overrides. For example,
Southwest Airlines' executive vice president of corporate services, vice
president of marketing, and general counsel stated that ihe impact of
overrides offered by Northwest on travel agents' booldng patterns was a
key factor in Southwest's decision to exit the Detroit-Indianapolis market.
Many of the airlines that started after deregulation noted tha.t the influence
of overrides in a particular market is now a critical factor for them in
determining whether to enter a market, especially those markets that have
a relatively lazge proportion of higher fare-paying business tra.f�c. For
example, Midwest Express, which targets the business tra.vel mazket,
sta.ted that the overrides offered by Northwest in large part caused it to
exit the Milwaukee-Detroit market in 1991. Also, the senior vice president
of marketing for Midwest Express maintained that the ovemdes offered by
American and United forced the airline to discontinue service in 1995
between Rockford, Illinois (via Milwaukee), and Boston, I.aGuardia,
Newark, Philadelphia, and Washington National. In testimony for the
Justice Depa.rtment, Midwest Express' na.tional sales manager described
the impact of overrides on the airline's decision to enter new markets:
"Because of our experiences in the Detroit-Milwaukee and Rockford-East Coast markets, .
when we consider entering a market we first establish that we will not be foreclosed from a
substantial share of the market by the large important travel agencies. For example, we
recently analyzed the feasibility of expanding to Omaha, Nebra.5ka. As part of our analysis,
we included an investigation of the Omaha travel agency market and determic►ed that one
travel agency sold approximately 62 percent of the airline tickets sold in Omaha. We
believed that it was critical to our entry decision and ultimate success in the city to
detennine whether this agency was willing to pmmote and sell Midwest bcpress service to
their customers. In fact, we did not provide service to Omaha until we met with this
dominant travel agency and received some assurances that we would receive their
support."
Similarly, Air South, a low fare airline headquartered in Columbia, South
Carolina, exited several southeastern markets beca.use it was not
attracting a sufficient amount of business traflic. Concerned that overrides
were the ca.use of its inability to attract business travelers, the airline in
1995 hired a private consultant to test the extent to which agents might
have been steering traffic away from Air South The consultant found that
Page 16 _ GAO/RCED-97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
C�
C�
B-272128
agents in some cities dominated by one airline often did not provide Air
South's competing flight options in response to anonymous inquiries, even
though those options were listed in cxss. In Miami, for example, travel
agents did not initially inform callers of available Air South flights
56 percent of the time, and even after the lowest fare was requested, the
agents did not mention Air South 30 percent of the time. Instead, the
agents frequently recommended flights by American Airlines, the la.rgest
` carrier in Miami. Both the cEo and the president of American Airlines
emphasized to us that such agreements are standard marketing tools that
any a.irline can offer. Moreover, American Airlines' cEo noted that it was
simply good business practice for an airline to encourage travel agents to
steer traffic to it.
Representatives of several airlines that started after deregulation told us
that, in their view, the importance of overrides to travel agencies has
increased as a result of the initiative by most established airlines in 1995 to
Iower base commissions from 10 percent to 8 percent and to cap the total
� amount of base commission that they will pay. Many travel agencies we
interviewed confirmed this view. The cEo of Frontier Airlines told us that
the ulcreasmg importance of overrides to travel agents led earlier this year
to Frontier's exiting all four of the markets in North Dakota that it was
serving. Before exiting those markets, F�ontier wrote DOT:
"With the cap on travel agent commissions, incentive overrides have become dearly
important to travel agents. One of our competitors in North Dakota is telling agents they
can only receive overrides if they book more than 90 percent of their flights on i� How can
we compete when 90 percent of travel agent customers are steered away from us?"
The existence of overrides also tends to limit the eniry of esta.blished
carriers into new mazkets. Senior executives at one major travel agency
told us, for example, that when one established airline attempted to enter
a number of markets domir�a.ted by another esta.blished airline, the
nonincumbent complained that agents were not boolang passengers on its
flights in those markets. The travel agency, which has override agreements
with both carriers, told the nonincumbent that it could not "support" it in
those markets because it also had an override agreement with the
incumbent carrier and that those were key markets for the incumbent. As
a result, according to the travel agency's senior management, the
nonincumbent later pulled out of those markets.
Our discussions with representa.tives of 9 of the 10 largest U.S. tra.vel
agencies, which in 1995 accounted for over one-third of all ticket sales by
l. �
- Page 17 — • GA0IRCED.97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airiine Indnstry
�.
---------- .
B-272128
C
travel agents, generally confirmed the importance of overrides.18 (App. II
lists these 10 agencies and the percenta.ge of their sales resulting from
business travel.) According to a11 of these agencies, several other factors
have more of an impact on booldng decisions than overrides. These
factors include consumers' desire to obta.in the lowest available fare and
to accumulate frequent flier miles, scheduling convenience, and
pre-existing contracts between individual businesses and particular
airlines. Nevertheless, most estima.ted that about 25 percent of the time,
the customer defers to the travel agent, and in these cases ovemdes tend
to be the "tie-breaker." Most agencies with whom we spoke termed
overrides "very important." Representa.tives of one agency noted that
because of the commission caps imposed by most of the esta.blished
a.irlines, its entire profit last year was the result of overrides.
In our August 1990 report, we e�ressed concern that overrides had the
potentiai to influence a larger proportion of airline booldngs tha.n the
proportion estimated by travel agencies. We cited, for example, a 1987
travel iridustry study which found that 51 percent of the tra.vel agents who
were surveyed chose a particular airline beca.use of overrides at least r
some of the time.19 However, we concluded that, short of an outright ban �
on overrides, few policy options existed that would mitigate overrides'
negative. impact on new entry.
Frequent Flier Plans Have Since their inception in the early 1980s, frequent flier plans ha,ve become .
Increased Business an increasingly effectave tool to encourage customers' loyalty to particular
Passengers' LOyalty t0 �'�►es. Under these plans, passengers qualify for awards by flying a
Esta.blished Airlines certain number of miles with the sponsoring airline. Thus, business
passengers who travel frequently have a greater incentive to fly that
particular airline continuously in order to build miles that may later be
used for free trips. The director of advertising and promotions at one
established carrier estima.ted that of the 20 million members of that
airline's frequent flier plan, nearly 1 million fly more ttian 25,000 miles a
year, and 25,000 members fly more than 100,000 miles a year. While
emphasizing that other factors, such as the convenience of an airline's
flight schedule, are more important determinants in attracting the business
traveler, he characterized the frequent flier plan as "the icing on the ca.ke"
in ensuring that the customers who travel the most, and who usually pay
the highest fazes, fly on that airline. Reco�ng the effectiveness of
'BThe nation's second latgest travel agency, Carison Wagonlit, declined to meet with us to discuss the
topic of overrides. Carlson is headquattered in Minneapolis. /
19T'he 1987 Travel Agency Market (July 1988). '\
- Page 18 _ GA+p/RCED-97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Industry
�..
B-272128
frequent flier plans, the established airlines have made it easier for
passengers to accumulate miles. They now often award miles, for
example, for each dollar that a passenger spends when using a particular
credit card or for each night's sta.y at a particular hotel chain.
The increasing use. of frequent flier plans exacerbates the impact of
overrides and further solidifies the dominant carrier's pasition in a market.
As with overrides, however, we have reported that few policy options
exist, short of an outright ban, that would mitigate the impact on entry of
frequent flier plans. The travel agencies with whom we spoke noted that
business travelers often request to fly only on the airline with which they
have a frequent flier plan. They also noted that they work with
corporations to ensure that the travel contracts that those companies have
with the airlines will satisfy the employees' desire to accumulate miles on
the major airiine in a particular market as well as accommodate the
agency's override agreement with that airline. As a result, entry by new
and established airlines alike into a mazket dominated by one carrier is
very difficuit.
_
Other Marketing Strategies Other marketing stra,tegies that we examined in 1990 also continue to
Further Strengthen present barriers to entry, Code-sharing agreements between airlines and
Incumbents' POSltIOri a.il.d commuter ca.rriers, for ex.ample, work to eliminate potential competitors
Thwart Entry by foreclosing connecting traffic from new airlines that do not have such
agreements. As a result, code-sharing allows an incumbent to strengthen
its position at a hub even further. In August 1990, we reported that the
airlines' ownership of the four cttss—Apollo, Sabre, System One, and
Worldspan—raises the costs for potential entrants.20 Agents tend to prefer
the airline whose cxs they use, which limits the available market for the
new entrant. In addition, ownership affords esta.blished airlines more
timely access to the booking data generated by the cxs, which allows them
to better monitor the booking patterns of travel agents.
While these factors still e�rist and work to further an incumbent's position
in a market, they were cited less often by airlines as a barrier to entry than
overrides and frequent flier plans. In part, tllese factors have become less
important because no�r has sought to eliminate any bias in the listing of
flights on cxs screens that would favor code-sharing flights or a particular
airline. In August 1996, it proposed rules to ensure that connecting flights
between code-share partners are not listed ahead of other connecting
20As of August 1996, American owned 100 percent of the largest CRS (Sabre), United and USAir owned
98 percent of the second largest (Apollo); Delta, Northwest, and TWA owned 95 percent of the third
lar8est (Worldspan); and Continental owned 33 percent of the fourth largest (System One).
. Page 19 _ GAO/BCED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnatry
B-272128
flights when the latter ha.ve a shorter total elapsed trip tame. In addition,
the emergence of alternative means of boolang flights, such as the
Internet, may be lessening the importance of cRss.
Barriers to Entry �e many factors, such as the relative amounts of business and leisure
travel, affect the average airfares at an airport, the markets affected by
Contribute to Higher operating barriers tend to have much higher fares. Forty-three airports
iill"�a.I'eS, but Effect on comprise FAa's large hub classification. As figure 2 shows, the fares were
�U�1� Of SeI'V1CC .IS generally much higher in 1995 at the 10 airports in this group affected by
opera.ting barriers than at the other 33 airports. On avera.ge, the fares,
More Difficult to adjusted for flight distances, were 31 percent higher at the airports having
Measure '`� operating barriers.21 Likewise, fares are higher in markets where one
airline accounts for the vast m�,jority of passenger enplanements. By
discouraging entry, the airlines' various market3ng strategies perpetuate
such domin��.nce. Five of the constrained airports shown in figure
2—Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Minnea.polis, and Detroit also had
one carrier in 1995 ttiat�accounted for over ?5 percent of their
enplanements. An analysis by Do'r confirms this. In Apri11996, the agency �
reported that in 1995 fares at Cincinnati, Charlotte, Minneapolis, and
Pittsburgh were the highest among the na.tion's lazgest 60 airports?�
21Because the data on fares are developed from DOT's statistical sample of tickets, they have a
measurable precision, or sampling e=ror. App. III provides the sampling errors for the data provided in
. . this section
YbThe �.ow Gost Airline Service Revolution, DOT (Aps 1996). DOT obtained siighfly different results
than we did because it combined data for Wa�ton's NaLional and Dulles airportx Newark, �' � '
LaGuardia, and Kennedy airpor4� and for Chicago's O�iare and Midway airports. �_.,,
- Page 20 _ GAfJ/B,CED-97�-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnatry
�
Figure 2: Percentage Difference in
Fares at Each of the 90 Constrained
Airports Compared to Fares at the
Other 33 Airports That Make Up FAA's
Large Hub Classification, 1995
B-272128
Percentage that average tare was higher than at other 33 airports
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
-5
�°� cQ �� o�Q �� �a �° Q� Q� ��
� � .o� � �Q �a � ms' � �c
V'C ��c Qfi.`D �o�+ `Ccm v 2 QA �m
�r � .a°it '� ���
s�,�g ?°i v `'m
Constrained airport
� One airiine accounts for >75% ot passengers
� Other constrained airporis
Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data.
Measuring the effects of barriers to entry on the quality of service in these
markets, however, is more difficul� While batriers to entry reduce the
number of airline options available, consumers in these markets receive
benefits in other ways. At each of the constrained airports identified
above, an established a.irline has ma.de the airport a key hub in its
hub-and-spoke route network. As a result, these a.irports can offer
consumers in those communities nonstop flights to a large number of
destinations. Because they are hubs, these airports can aLso offer
consumers in nearby communities convenient one-stop service to those
same destinations. In addition, the frequency of flights from a hub is often
Page 21 — GAO/RCEA97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Induatry
B-272128
substantially higher tha.n could be justified by local traff�c beca.use the
majority of travelers who fly from a spoke city to a hub travel beyond the
hub on another flight to a di.fferent spoke destination.
Likewise, the marketing strategies used by incumbents to fortify their
positions also produce benefits to consumers. For example, consumers
receive free trips as a result of frequent flier plans. In addition,
code-sharing partnerships between incumbents and commuter carriers
result in shorter layover times on connecting flights and in more frequent
flights than could otherwise be supported by local traffic.
COIICIUS10I1S As originally intended, the deregulation of the airline industry has spurred
new entry and intense competition in many domestic ma.rkets, leading to
lower fares and better service for most air travelers. However, the full
benefits of deregulation have yet to be realized because of problems with
access to certain airports and the cumulative effect of certain marketing
strategies employed by the established airiines.
In particular, artificial constraints on entry, in the form of slots, have �.
combined with restrictive gate-leasing arrangements to limit competition
at key airports in the East and upper Midwest, contributing to signi.ficantly
higher fares at these airports. Meanwhile, efforts by the Congress and
several airport authorities to spur entry at these airports ha.ve achieved
little success. The limits on flight distances to and from La.Guardia and
National and growing capacity constraints at Chicago's Midway Airport
exacerbate the problem and make it clear that in the absence of action to
remove or lower these barriers, consumers in these regions will cantinue
to pay higher airfares. However, any action to address these barriers must
take into account the substantial investments that esta.blished airlines
have ma,de in these airports and in developing their service.
In this regard, we identified a number of policy options 6 years ago that
nor could consider to lower these barriers and increase competition. Since
tYten, there has been little progress toward reducing these barriers, and
some, such as slots, have grown worse. Therefore, we believe that nor
must now take positive steps to address several of the most serious
barriers. In addition, congressional action would be required for two other
areas affecting the competitive environment the standard governing the
availability of slots to new entrants and the perimeter rule at Washington
National A.irport.
_ _ �
. i
Page 22 — GAO/B.GEA97-4 Batriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
:
B-2?2128
Recommendations To promote competition in regions that have not experienced lower fares
as a result of a.irline deregulation, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transporta.tion:
create a pool of available slots by periodically withdrawing some slots that
were grandfathered to the ma,jor incumbents, taldng into account the
investments made by those airlines at each of the slot-controlled airports,
and hold a lottery to distribute them in a fashion that increases
competition and
direct the Administrator, F�,, to make an airport's efforts to have gates
a�ailable to nonincumbents a factor in FnA's decisions on federal grants to
airports.
Matters for � Drn' does not choose to create a slot pool, the Congress may wish to
revise the legislative standard governing DOT's granting of additional slots
Congressional to accommodate new entrants. Specifically, the Congress may want to
-. COIIS1C�era,t10I1 make the consideration of competitive benefits a key criterion, taldng into
( 1 account the need to balance the benefits of increased competition with the
possible costs from increased congestion and communities' concerns
about aircraft noise. Finally, the Congress may also wish to grant the
Secretary of �ansportation the authority to allow exemptions to the
perimeter rule at National Airport when the proposed service will
substantially increase competition.
AgC'I1Cy �i0I11I11E'I1tS we provided a copy of a draft of this report to Dar for review and
comment. We met with voT oificials, including the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, the Assistant General
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, and the Director,
Office of Aviation and International Economics, who generally agreed with
the report. nar noted that if a slot lottery was held, a number of factors,
such as the overall impact on air service at all affected coznmunities,
would have to be considered in deciding how to realloca.te any slots that
aze withdrawn. Nevertheless, offcials in FaA's O�ce of the Chief Counsel,
including the managers of the Air Space and Air �c La.w Branch and
the Slot Administration O�ce, stated that such a lottery could be
implemented with little administrative difficulty. noT also suggested
several revisions to the wording in our draft report, which we ha.ve
incorpora.ted where appropria.te. noT chose not to comment on our
recommendations or matters for congressional consideration at this time
l� �
Page 23 — GAOBCED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
B-272128
but noted that it would comment as part of the agency's required response
under 31 U.S.C. 720.
Scope and To deternline if barriers to entry exist and, if so, the extent to which they
prevent airlines from entering new markets, we interviewed the senior
Methodology mana.gement of all 10 established airlines and 26 of the 38 airlines that
started after deregulation and thai opera.ted in 1995. Taken together, the
established airlines and those that started after deregulation that we
interviewed accounted for 98.5 percent of the scheduled a.irline passenger
enplanements in 1995. We atso interviewed executives of several airlines
that began operations in early 1996. In general, these interviews involved
the vice presidents of operations and marketing for an airline, and in many
cases, the cEo. We also interviewed officials at nor, FaA, and the Justice
Department as well as representatives of 9 of the 10 largest U.S. tra.vel
agencies and the 4 cxs vendors. Largely as a result of the issues ra:ised
during these discussions, we conducted field work in Atlanta, Georgia;
Chicago, Illinois; Columbia, South Carolina; Dallas, Texas; Detroit,
Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New York; and Washington,
D.C. (App. III provides additional details on our scope and methodology.)
Our review was conducted from May through October 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report unti130 da.ys after the
date of t�iis letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of
Trar�sporta.tion; the Administrator, FaA; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will send copies
to others upon request.
If you ha.ve any questions, please call me at (202) 512-2&34. Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Anderson, Jr. '
Director, Transportation and
Telecommunica.tions Issues
". Page 24 , _• GAO/RCED-97-4 Barriere to Entrp in the Airline Indnstry
C
C
Letter 1
Append� I 28
U.S. Scheduled
Passenger .Airlines,
Their Number of '
Scheduled Passenger �
Enplanements, Fleet
Size, and Operating
Results, 1995
Appendix II 3a
The Top 10 U. S. Travel
A �encies and the
�- .��centage of Their
Bool�ngs That
Constitutes Business
Travel, 1995
Appendix III 31
Scope and
Methodology
Appendix IV �
Maj or Contributors to
This Report
Related GAO Products 35
Tables Table 1: Percenta.ge of Domestic Air Carrier Slots Held by 5
Selecte�i Groups in 1986, 1991, and 1996
�' i
Page 26 - _ GAUBCEA97-4 Barriera to En�y in tLe Airline Indnstry
�
Contents
a
Table 2: .Airports Where Post-Deregulation Airlines Reported 10
Difficulty Gaining Competitive Access to Gates, and the Leasing
Axrangements at Those Airports
Table III.I: Percentage Difference in Fares at Each of the 10 33
Constrained Airports Compared to Fares at the Other 33 Airports
That Make Up FAA's Large Hub Classification, 1995
Figures �gure l: Airports Identified as Having Limited Entry Due to Slot 13
Controls and Exclusive-Use Gate Leases
F�gure 2: Percentage Difference in Fares at Each of the 10 21
Constrained Airports Compared to Fares at the Other 33 Airports
That Make Up FAA's Large Hub Classification, 1995
� :
Abbreviations
cEo Chief Executive Officer
cxs computer reservation system
Dar Departanent of'I'ransportation
F�n Federal Avia.tion Adnunistration (�
GAo General Accounting O:ffice
Page 27 _ GAOlRCEI}-97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstay
�•• �
� , � , �` � • � ,• , ♦ • �
�
�' � �� ��' �� �
�
� � . . .. . � � ��. � �
�
Resul�s, 1��5
Mumber of passenger
Airline enplanements Number of aircraft Operating profit or (loss)
Estabiished
Delta Air Lines
United Airlines
American Airlines
USAir
Northwest Airlines
Continental Airlines
TWA
Alaska Air
Aloha
Hawaiian -- — ---------
Totai
Airlines started after deregulation
Independent
Airlines
West
Valujet
Reno Air
American Trans Air
Kiwi Airlines
Carnival
Midwest Express
Midway
Air South
Markair
Tower
Vanguard
Western Pacific
Spirit Air
Frontier
Casino Express
AirTran Airways
Grand
Nations Air
Tristar
RePve Aleutian
82,668,192
71,962,701
71,077, 340
55,737,601
44,518,505
33,512,847
20,636,726
9,795,941
5,102,870
4,764,992
399,777,715
50,038,707
16,697,006
5,137,432
3,816,289
2,358,609
1,649,852
1,527,861
1,390,412
1,233,511
994,658
989,608
972,817
778,863
731,198
623,028
611,257
205,300
146,633
137,830
134,822
76,306
59,738
4-4,365
539
558
635
394
380
317
--186
74
15
21
3,119
$1,038,427,000
831,937,000
967,588,000
234,651,000
910,224,000
238,200,000
36,956,000
72,424,000
(7,962,000)
(602,000)
$4,321,843,000„
224 $308,548,000
93
51
21
46
15
22
22
12
7
15
15
8
15
7
9
2
10
2
2
4
5
154,733,000
107,676,374
15,212,960
(757,519)
7,292,764
30,080,342
1,394,000
(13,490,782)
(10,530,869)
13,516,436
(11,405,321)
(6,851,886)
4,466,869
(8,578,064)
(1,647,405)
(3,634,008)
(8,671,225)
(6,962,799}
(2,868,000)
(2,707,441)
(continued)
Page 28 _ GAOBCED-97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
�
Appendix I
U.S. Scheduled Passenger Airlines, Their
Number of Scheduled Passenger
Enplanements, Fleet Size, and Operating
Reaulte, 1996
Number of passenger
Airline _� enplanements Number of aircraft Operating profit or (loss)
World 2,697 8 10,351,000
Prestige Airways 1,146 4 (437,804)
Great American 762 7 4,103,435
MGM Grand 36 6 (3,889,867)
Total 90,360,143 634
$578,548,768
Affiliates of established airlines
Simmons 4,958,927 81 (35,379,863)
Horizon Air 3,629,281 65 4,323,000
Continental Express 3,655,730 79 17,255,799
Atlantic Southeast 3,066,897 84 75,875,107
Mesa 2,143,043 175 14,569,403
Trans States 1,725,412 53 12,584,273
Business Express 1,637,170 63 (9,823,191)
Air Wisconsin 1,619,807 13 3,502,076
USAir Shuttie_ 1,403,368 72 1��7�2�g7g
Executive Airiines 1,190,371 33 (7,252,1ti� °
UFS 655,964 10 2,757,156
Totai 25,685,9�0
668 $96,184,444
System totai 515,823,828 4,421 $4,996,576,212
Note 1: Markair went out of business in late 1995. In addition, several airlines, inciuding JetTrain,
Air21, and the new Pan Am, began operations in 1996 and therefore are not listed above. .
Note 2: Because the number of aircraft in an airiine's fleet frequently changes, we updated, to the
extent possible, the number of aircraft to reflect operations in 1996 according to our discussions
with airline executives.
Source: DOT Form 41, the Air Transport Association, and GAO's interviews with the airlines'
executives.
Page 29 — GAO/ECEA97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airiine Indnatry
• ••- •
� •, ,, '; �i •, 1 � � � � , �
•
� � � ! -� • � .,,i . = ,
•, � � • � � � �.
Percentage of sales that
Travel agency Headquarters Totai airline sales ($000) are for business travel
American Express New York, NY $7,300,000 95
Garlson Wagonlit Minneapolis, MN 2,426,947 74
Rosenbiuth Philadelphia, PA 1,800,000 97
BTI Americas Northbrook, IL 1,634,933 85
Sato Arlington, VA 7,107,141 80
Maritz Fenton, MO 1,001,000 98
WorldTravei Partners Atlanta, GA 505,000 95
Omega Fairfax, VA 413,000 75
Travel and Transport Omaha, NE 381,000 82
Travel One Mt. Laurel, NJ 355,000 95
Totai for top 10 16,924,021
Other 23,668 agencies 44,269,598
Total 561,193,619
Source: "Business Travel Survey," Business Travel News, May 1996, and the Airlines Reporting
- Corporation.
( �)
Page 30 _ GAOBCEI?-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the .Airline Indnatry
�
APPend.ix III --
SCOpe
� � T' i,.�• �•
.
�
During our initial discussions with many airline executives, several
barriers to entry, including slots and the lack of competitive access to
gates at Detroit, Minneapolis, and Newark, were repeatedly cited. As result
of those discussions, we visited several loca.tions to further examine these
issues. To the extent possible at each loca.tion, we discussed whether
barriers to entry existed with representatives of the relevant a:irlines,
airports, m�jor tra.vel agency, and cxs vendor. Specifically, we met with
representa.tives of:
• Delta Air Lines, Va1�.�jet Airlines, World'I�avel Partners, and Worldspan in
Atlanta.;
� United Airlines and the Chica.go Department of Aviation in Chicago;
• Air South in Columbia, South Carolina;
• American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Sabre in Dallas;
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Detroit City Airport in Detroit;
• Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport in Minneapolis;
• Tower Air, USAir Shuttle, Kiwi International Airlines, the Port Authority of
New York & New Jersey, and American Express �ravel in New York; and
� Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, TWA, USAir, Apollo, and the �
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in Washington, D.C.
Overall, we interviewed executives at all 10 esta.blished airlines and at 26
airlines that started after deregulation and that operated in 1995. Of the 26
airlines, 19 were not affiliates of the esta.blished cairiers. These airlines
were Southwest, .America West, Valujet, Reno, American �Ya.ns Air, Kiwi,
Carnival, Midwest Express, Midway, Air South, Tower, Vanguard, Western
Pacific, Spirit, Frontier, Aifl�an, Z`ristar, Eastwind, and Prestige Airways.
The remaining seven post-deregulation airlines that we
interviewed—Simmons, Horizon Air; Confanental Express, Atiantic
Southeast, Mesa, USAir Shuttle, and Executive Airlines—were aifiliates of
the esta.blished carriers.
In addition, we analyzed nar's data. on fares and service to deterinine how
the barriers tha.t we identified affected the domestic market� To examine
the potential effects on fares, we compared yields at the 10 airports
affected by opera.ting barriers with yields at the other 33 airports that
make up Fna's large hub airport classification. The yields were based on
fares from both enplaning and d'eplaning traffic at the airport. Additionally,
any routes that had fewer than 10 passengers per day were eliminated.
Beca.use each airport has a different distribution of flight lengths, an
overall yield for each airport could be distorted by differences in route
��
Page 31 — GAOB,CED-9?-4 Barriers to Entay in the Airline Indnatry
Appendia lII
Scope nnd Methodology
lengths among the airports.� Therefore, we made the comparisons within
each of nine distance ca.tegories, in 250-mile increments, based on the
one-way straight-line miles between the origin and destiria.tion.
Within each distance category, we compared the yields at each of the 10
constrained airports with the overall yield for the rema.ining 33 airports
and calculated the percenta.ge di.fferences. To obtain a single measure for
each of the 10 airports, we averaged the nine calculated percentages for
each airport, weighting them by the number of passengers flying in each of
the nine distance categories. The resulting percenta.ge differences are
therefore ac�justed for distance, as well as for the particular passenger
distributions at each airport across the distance categories.
Beca.use we analyzed data. that were drawn from a sta.tistical sample of
tickets purchased, each estima.te developed from the sample has a
measurable precision, or sampling error. The sampling error is the
maximum amount by which the estimate obtained from a sta,tistical
sa.mple can be expected to differ from the true universe value. Sampling
errors are usually sta.ted at a certain confidence level—in this case, at a
95-percent level. This means that the chances are 19 out of 20 that if we
reviewed all tickets purchased, the results would differ from the estima,tes
obtained from our sample by less than the sampling errors of such
estimates. Table III.1 provides the sampling errors for the percenta.ges that
the fares at each of the 10 constrained airports were higher (or lower, in
the case of Kennedy airport) than the other 33 airports that malce up F�'s
large hub classifica.tion.
(� --� �Because lo distance routes have lower el
ng yi ds, an airport with a preponderance of long distance
routes wouid appear less expensive than one with mostly short distance routes.
Page 32 — GAO/S.CEA97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnatry
Appendix III
Scope and Methodology
C
Table 111.1: Percentage Difference in
Fares at Each of the 10 Constrained Percentage difference in Sampling error at
Airports Compared to Fares at the fares compared to other 95-percent confidence
Other 33 Airports That Make Up FAA's Constrained airport large airports, 1995 level (+ or -)
Large Hub Classification, 1995 Charlotte + 87.81 1.43
Cincinnati + 84.47 1.60
Pittsburgh + 72,23 1 22
Washington National + 46.39 p.77
Minneapolis + 45.32 p,g7
� New York LaGuardia + 34.64 0.68
Detroit + 26.56 0.75
Newark + 24.26 0.63
hicago O'Hare + 23.76 0.58
New York Kennedy - 4.08 0.68
Overall + 31.06 p,qp
Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data
Finally, we analyzed data. provided by F�u's Slot Administration Office on� �
slot holdings at O'Hare, Kennedy, LaGuardia, and National to determine
the extent to which the possession of slots had become concentrated
among a few incumbent airlines. We also received assistance from a
consultant, Mark R. Dayton, who was a Senior Prograrn Officer during the
National Research Council's exan:iination in 1991 of trends in fares,
service, and safety since deregulation.�'
2°Winds of Change: Domestic Air Transport Since Deregu]ation, National Research Councii, Special (
Report 230 (Washington, D.C., 1991). `•
Page 33 — GAO/SCED-9?-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
IV
�
i � ` � � � � � • , •
Resources, Gerald L. Dillingha.m, Associate Director
F'rancis P. Mulvey, Assistant Director
COI11I11L1Y1.1�7, a,I1C� T�mothy F. Hannegan
Economic M. Aaron Casey
Develo ment Julian L. x�g
p Sara Ann w. Moessbauer
Division, Washington,
D.C.
�'gBe � — GAf�/R.CED-97-4 Barriera to Entry in the Airline Indnstry
-.-
�;V� �
�.f:
REI�,t(:' Ci. GAC� PY°O C�L1:CtS
Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety Since Airline Deregulation
(GAO/I'-RCED-96-126, Apr. 25, 1996).
Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at Small,
Medium-Sized, and Large Communities (GAo�tcED-ss-�s, Apr. 19, 1996).
Airline Competition: Essential Air Service Slots at O'I3are International
AITpOTt �GAO/RCED-94-118F5, Maz-. 4, 1994).
Airline Competition: Higher Fares and Less Competition Continue at
Concentrated Airports (GAOiRCED-93-171, July 15, 1993).
Airline Competition: Options for Addressing �nancial and Competition
Prablems, Testimony Before the National Comxcussion to Ensure a Strong
Competitive Ai.rline Industry (Gaorr-xcED-ss-52, June l, 1993).
Computer Reservation Systems: Action Needed to Better Monitor the cxs
Industry and Eliminate cxs Biases (Gno�tcEn-s2-iso, Mar. 20, 1992).
�� �
.Airline Competition: Effects of Airline Market Concentration and Barriers
to Entry on Airfares (GAonzcEn-si-ioi, Apr. 26, 1991).
Airline Competition: Weak Financial Structure Threatens Competition
�GAO/RCED-91-110, Apr. 15, 1991).
Airline Competition: Fares and Concentra.tion at Small-City Airports
�GAO/R.CED-91-51, Jan. 18, 1991).
Airline
Airline
Airline
ulation: Trends in Airfazes at 1
� Communities (GAOiRCED-91-13,
tition: Industry Opera.ting and
GAO/RCED-90-147, Aug. 29, 1990).
Airline Deregula
�GAO/I' RCED-89-65,
�rts in Small and
. 8, 1990).
;her Fares and Reduced Com
GAO/RCED-90-102, July 11,1990).
; Pra.ctices Limit
Bamers to Competition in t�e Airline
at
Airline Competition: �r's Implementation of .Airline Regulatory Authority
(GAO/RCED-89-93, June 28, 1989). - ("
Page 3S GA�/BCED-97-4 Barriera to Eatrp in the Airline Indnstry
�
Related GAO Products
Airline Service: Changes at Ma�jor Montana Airports Since Deregulation
�GAO/RCED-89-141F5, May 24, 1989).
Airline Competition: Fare and Service Changes at St. Louis Since the
TWA-Ozark Merger (Gao�ztcEn-ss-2i7sx, Sept. 21, 1988).
Competition in the .Airline Computerized Reservation Systems
(GAO/T RCED-88-fi2, Sept. 14, 1988).
Airline Competition: Impact of Computerized Reservation Systems
(GAO/RCED-86-94, May 9, 1986).
Airline Takeoff and Landing Slots: Department of'T�ansportation's Slot
Alloca.tion Rule (GAo�tcEn-ss-s2, Jan. 31, 1986).
Deregulation: Increased Competition Is Maldr►g Airlines More Efficient and
Responsive to Consumers (GAoixcEn-ss-zs, Nov. 6, 1985).
(341494) Page 36 — GAO/3CEA97-4 Barriers to Entry in the Airline Indnstary
C
z
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT
COUNCIL
General IVleeting
December 3, 1996
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order, Roll Cail
•.2. Approval of Minutes of Nieeting October 22, 1996
3. Introduction of invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
� � 4. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint
Summary
5. Year-End Housekeeping Issues:
1997 MASAC Meeting Dates
Membership Issues
6. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting
7. Persons Wishing to Address the Councii
8. Othe� Items Not on the Agenda
9. Adjournment
Next Meeting:
January 28, 1997
J
�
MIIVUTES
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUIVCI�
GENERAL MEETING
October 22, 1996
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order. Roll Caii
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:40 p.m. and the secretary was
asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance.
�
Maric Salmen
Bob Johnson
Brian Bates
Dick Keinz
John Richter
Carol McGuire
Tom Hueg
Scott Bunin
Vem Wilcox
Don Priebe
Mayor Tom Egan
�ance Staricha
Jill Smith
Ed Porter
Dale Hammons
Glenda Spiotta
Advisors
Cindy Greene
Ron Glaub
Traci Erickson
John Foggia
Northwest
MBAA
Airbome
MAC
Minneapolis
St. Paul
St. Paul �
St. Paul
Bioomington
Richfield
Eagan
Eagan
Mendota Heights
Bumsville
Inver Grove Heights
Associate Member Sunfish Lake
FAA
FAA
MAC
MAC
Visitors
Brian Timerson MPCA
Mayor Coral Houle Bloomington
Craig Larsen
Aqproval of Minutes
The minutes of the September 24, 1996 meeting were approved as presented with the addition
of Brian Bates, Airbome, to the roll call.
�
C�
3. Introduction of invited quests
Receipt of Communications
Mayor Coral Houle of Bloomington was present.
Two communications were accepted. One was a petition from a neighborhood group from
Richfield and the other a request by Joe Lee, Minneapolis, on the behalf of the Hale Page
Diamond Association. Both letters were tumed over to the MASAC Ope�ations Committee.
4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
John Foggia, MAC Technical Advisor, briefed the Council on the health of the ANOMS system
and distributed a memo from Staff explaining the reason for an abbreviated Technical Advisor's
Report. John said the ANOMS system has not been validated, and he does not feel comfortable
publishing the data until validation is complete. John also explained the validating process.
Traci Erickson, MAC, reiterated that the data is not lost. The August, September and October
Technical Advisor Reports will be distributed at the December MASAC meeting.
John Foggia, MAC Technical Adviso�, said there has been a steady increase in interest in
ANOMS data.
John Richter, Minneapolis, asked a numbe� of questions about the ANOMS consultant, HMMH.
He said he will be going to Boston in November and would like to visit their offices. Traci
Erickson, MAC, said she would get him the address.
(� )
5. MASAC Operations Committee Uadate
Mark Salmen, Northwest, briefed the Council on the October 16, 1996 Operations Committee
meeting.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked Cindy Greene, FAA, about the last item from the Operations
Committee regarding calls received at NWA about noise abatement. Cindy said the air traffic
control center is working on SIDs that are not for noise abatement p�ocedures. Cindy said
Northwest was called for fleet mix informatoin.
Mark Salmen, Northwest, briefed the Operations Committee's recommendation for the MAC to
investigate the redesignation of runways to reflect true magnetic headings.
Dale Hammons, Inver Grove Heights, asked why the n.mways needed to be redesignated. Cindy
Greene, FAA, explained finro reasons:
1. Noise abatement and air traffic procedures are based on magnetic headings.
2. Aircraft safety.
John Foggia, MAC Technical Advisor, said the annual rate of magnetic change is approximately
1.4 degrees.
�
Cindy Greene, FAA, advised the Council that for any future noise abatement procedure adopted
the intent of the procedure should be included because of the change in runway magnetic
heading.
�
MARK SALMEN, NORTHWEST, iIAOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
IVIASAC OPEI�ATIONS COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND MAC INVESTIGATE REDESIGNATING
THE EXISTING RUNWAY HEADINGS TO THE TRUE MAGNETIC HEADINGS AS REQUIRED
BY FAR 139, AND THAT MASAC EXAMINE EXISTING NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
AS THEY RELATE TO MAGNETIC HEADINGS AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE PROCEDURES TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECT OF THE POSSIBI.E
DESIGNATION CHANGE. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED
6. Report of the MAC Commission Meetinq
The Commission meeting was postponed until October 28, 1996. Chairman Johnson reviewed
the Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendations to the Commission, which will go to the
Commission on October 28th.
7. Persons Wishing to Address the Council
There were no persons wishing to address the Council.
8. Other Items Not on the Aqenda
John Richter, Minneapolis, commented that the man from Edina at last month's meeting told him
he is moving due to aircraft noise. � �
Chairman Johnson reviewed a memo from Tom Brown, MAC's Part 150 Construction Manager, (
regarding Mr. Borys Polec's home. John Foggia, MAC Technical Advisor, reviewed the noise
monitoring report for Mr. Polec's home before and after insulation. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights,
asked what the maximum allowable decibel level was for an insulated home. John said the FAA
requires the sound insulation package acheive a 5 decibel reduction.
9. Adjoumment
Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, Acting Secretary
��
3
�
1 t , , , � . t ', ' '; .
JAN(JARY 28
��IZLTAI2Y 25
Mt�►itC�I 25
AP�, 22
1VY�Y 27
J� 24
JULY 22
AUGUST 26
SEP'CEM�E�t 23
OCTO�tER 28
DECEMBER 2
r� �
�--. -
- -=�-
. \
� �
. .
.
. ,�:i - - --
�.
f..
�,
_ /
•�1 � __--------
. _
.Y�.
�
� :
-;�-
_�..�-_'"
:
_
�
, ,' - ,
: , ,. .
,
, . .,, ,
� � ,•, �„
�a._- r...
. , ; ��i�_"""'"i/"
� I�,/
,
: . -- -.
- --
.r,��'-'�: .�::�: � ��-=
,77.�..��r ����r
. . `1r���-.r 7 �i�7
y� /�� �
�
_ `,
, . � � . � � . . �.�.. � . � . . '...�_����.
. � . � . . " . . .. . � � � � '��\` .
� � . �. �. . . .. � . .�\�.
. . � . . .. .. . ,�
. �__. .� . .. ��. � . �� :
Remote Mo�itorir�g ►Site Locations 12
i , , . � �, �;,� ,� , ,
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ..............................:..........
i , , �',�r , �, � ,� � . . .'
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14
' � � i � � � � , . �', ,�
, � �, . � � , , �. ,�
, � �, . � �; , , i, ,i
, � �, . � � . , �, ,�
, � �, . � �, , , �, ,�
, � �. . � �; , . �� .�
� i it � ir
.
� �� � � i i /t� i � � � ` ' , �
Carrier Jet Operations - August 1996 ................................................................................22
Airport Noise and Operati°ons Monitoa�ng Syste�n Flight Tracks � 23
Carrier Jet tlperations - August 1996 ................................................................................23
Airpor°t Noise and Operata'ons Monitor�ng System Flight Tracks 24
Carrier Jet Operadons - August 1996 ............................................................................... 24
Airport 1�oase and Operations 1Vlonitorzng System Flig�ht Tracks 25
Carrier Jet Operations - August 1996 ............................................................................... 25
Analysis of �larcraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn d8(A)
Analysis of �lircraft No�se Eve►ats - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
Aviation Noise & Sate!(ite Programs
�
27
�
Metropolitan Airports Commissio�
Operatio�as and Comptaini Sugnmary
August 1996 �
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Runway Arrival °10 Use Departure °10 �Tse
04 5 ' 0.0% 21 0. I%
22 IS 0.1% 193 1.0%
11 8721 45.0% 8905 47.7a10
29 1Ob43 54.9%a � 9562 51.2%
NtSP' August Fteet n�Yix Pea�centage
St�ge Sclieduled Schecluied ANOMS ANOIViS
1995 1g96 Count 1995 Coant 1996
Stage 2 52.7% 48.5% 53.2% 49.7%
Stage 3 47.3% 51.5% 46.89b 50.3%
Airport August Complaint Summary
Airpc�rt 1995 1946
. MSP 1818 2737
Airlake 0 2
Anoka 1 5
Crysta! 0 6
Flying Cloud 4 5
Lake Elmo 0 7
S�. Paul 5 4
Misc. 0 0
TOTA� 1ffiS 2766
Augusi Operadons �ummaay - Aerpoe�t Directors Office
Aviation IYoise & Satellite Programs
Page t
�tetropolitan Airports Commission � '
IVlinneapolis - Sto Paul International Airport Complaint S�mrr�ary
August 1996 Cornptaint Surnrriary by C�ty
Page Z
Ci Arrival De arture Total Percenta e
Afton 0 2 2 0.1%
A le Valle 6 8 14 0.5°l0
Arden Hills �0 2 2 0.1%
Bloomin ton 0 18 18 0.7%
B urnsville 1 3 4 0.2%
Corcoran 0 1 1 0.0%
Ea an 29 130 159 5.9%
Eden Prairie 1 10 11 0.4%
Edina 2 59 61 2.3%
Falcon Hei hts 0 1 1 0.0%
� Ho kins 0 1 � 1 0.0%
Inver Grove Hei hts 10 415 425 15.7%
Medina 1 0 1 0.0%
Mendota 0 1 1 0.0%
Mendota Hei hts �� � 6 282 288 10.6%
Minnea olis 214 1257 1471 54.2%
Minnetonka 2 2 4 0.2%
Mounds �ew 0 � 1 t 0.0%
North Oaks 0 i 1 � . 0.0%
Pl mouth 0 2 2 0.1 °Io
Richfield 4 163 16� 6.2%
Roseville 1 0 1 0.0%
S. St. Paul 0 4 4 0.1%
St. Louis Park 43 19 62 2.3°Io
S� Paul 3 2 5 0.2%
Sunfish Lake 0 5 5 0.2%
W. St. Paul 0 1 1 0.0%
Total 323 2391 2714 100%
Time of Day � Nature of Comptaint
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �
C
�
, , i
Metropolitan Airports Commission �
. , �. .
Available Time for Runway �.Jse �
Tower Log Reports - August 1996
All Hours I
0% �'
41%
0%
35% —
.,L�ir "�� 7
0%
3%a
Nighttime Hotres
0%
0%
(-1 r-�— n 2 °l.
0%
3%
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
65%
56%O
88%
85%
Page 3
titetropolitan Airporu Commission
. � � • �; � ;
� �,.11; • ' ���
, � ,,
August
Runway �p�� Count Penceotage 1995 CO�unt 1995
Percentage
04 A 5 0.0% 408 2.0%
11L A 42�8 � 22.1% 5938 29.4%
11 R A 4443 22.9% 6094 30.1 %
22 A 15 0.1% 224 1.1%
29L A 5698 29.4% 3927 19.4%
29R A 4945 25.5% 3634 18.0%
Total A�'. 19384 100% 20225 100%
04 � D 21 0.1 °do 36 0.2%
11 L D 4422 23.7% 6109 30.7%
11R D 4483 24.0°Xo 6470 32.6%
22 D 193 1.0% 514 2.6%
29L D 5195 27.8% � 3543 17.8%
29 R D 4367 23.4% 3195 16.1 %
Total Deps:� 18681 100% 19867 100%
Nore: ARTS data missing for (1.SZ days
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airpocts Commission
. • • '� 1 . � �, ti
� , �' � � • �
. '
August
Runway A��� Count Pe�centage `�Q 1995
Departure 1995 Co�ni Percentage
04 A 0 0.0% 206 1.6%
11 L A 2864 � 22.7% 3769 29.3%
11R A 2886 22.9% 3886 30.2%
22 A 10 0.1 % 125 1.0%
' 29L. A 3618 28.6% 2544 19.8%
29R A 3250 25.7% 2332 18.1%
Total Arr. . 12628 100% 12862 100°10
04 D 3 0.0% 4 0.0%
11L D 2771 23.0% 3585 29.3%
11 R D 3092 25.7% 4504 36.8%
22 D ( 23 1.0% 317 2.6%
29L D 3422 28.5% � 2408 19.7%
29R D 2628 21.8% 1411 11.6%
Total Dep. 12039 100% 1Z229 100%
nrote: rvt[J uata missing jo� U.cYl days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 5
Metropolitan �lirports Commission
� • . , ;�. • � , �
..
� �'/� • � �.1
.
C
:,
2.2%
tiugust
Runway �p�� Count P'e�cent�ge 1995 C unt 1995
Percentage
04 A 1 0.1% 41 5.1%
11 L A 73 9.0% 116 . 14.2%
11 R A 115 14.2% 86 10.6%
22 A 1 0.1% 40 5.0%
�29L A 413 S 1.1 °Io 350 43.3%
29R A 206 25.5% 1�5 21.7%
Total Arre ' 809 100% 808 100%
04 D 2 0.5% 6 1.8%
11 G D 74 19.7% 112 32.9%
11 R D 159 42.5% 164 48.2%
22 D 7 1.9% 30 8.8%
29L D 80 21.3% 24 7.1
29R D_ 53 14.1% 4 t.2%
Total Dep. 3'75 ` 100% 340 100%
�vore: fuc � � aara m�ssrng Jor u. ts� aays
Page b Aviation Noise & Sateltite Programs
J
�Ytetropoliran A�rports Commission
� . . . : _, ,�, . � �
.
Runway Use Report August
August
Runway �p �i„e Count Percentage ��5 ��t 1995
Per�entage
04 � A 0 0.0% 19 3.4%
11 L A 38 6.5% 73 13.3%
11 R A 58 10.0% 49 8.9%
22 A 0 0.0% 28 5.1 %
29L A 321 54.8% 250 45.5%
29R A 168 28.7% 131 23.8%
Totat Arr. . 585 100% 550 100%
04 D 2 0.9% 1 0.5%
11 L D 39 18.0% 64 33.7%
11 R D 89 41.0% 95 50.0%
22 D 5 2.3% 21 I 1.1 %
29L D 42 19.4% 8 4.2%
29R D 40 18.4% 1 0.5%
Total Dep. 21� 100% 190 100%
Note: At�'7� dara misstng Jor v.r�a czays
Aviation Noise & Sate(lite Programs
Page 7
Metropolitan Airpores Commission
Page 8
. . . � 1. . 1, 1 t'
. � ,11�.
Aircraft Type Count � Percentage
B 707 0 0.0%
B727H 232 1.0%
B733/4/5 688 2.8%.
B747 I51 0.6%
B74F 9 0.0%
B757 2532 10.3%
B767 1 0.0%
BA46 0 �.��%O
CL65 354 1.4%
DA10 23 0.1%
DC 10 900 3.7%
DC87 97 0.4%
DC9H 2737 11.1%
EA30 9 0.0%
EA31 36 0.1%
EA32 2407 9.8%
FK 10 � 1031 4.2%
L 1011 3 0.0%
MD11 14 0.0%
MD80 1184 . 4.8°k
BA10 • 23 0.1%
BA11 0 0.0°k
B727 3801 15.4°k
5737 1766 7.2%
DC8 . 87 _ 0.4°!0
DC9 6550 26.5%
FK28 32 0.1%
Total 2466i 100%
ote: ta mtsstng or . ys
Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs
C
I ' . • L . ';
49. %% utQgG' II
�
( j
.. . ., .. : �.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� � .� • . � � �; ,• � ,� � � . .
Identifier Aircraft Description
B707 BOEING 707
B727 BOEING 727
B727H BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
B733/4/S BOEING 737-300/400/500
B737 BOEING 737 100/2U0 SERIES
. B747 BOEING 747
B74F . BOEING 747 FREIGHTER
B757 BOEING 757
8767 BOEING 76'7
BA10 BRITISH AEROSPACE t25
BA11 BRTTISH AEROSPACE 111
BA46 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146
CL65 CANADAIR 650 � .
DA 10 FALCON 10
DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10
DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8
DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SE.RIFS RE
DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
DC9H MCDONNELL'DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KTT
EA30 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300
EA31 AIRBUS IlYUUSTRIES A310
� EA32 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320
FK10 FOKKER 1�
FK27 ' FOKKER F27 (PROP) �
FK28 FOKKER F28
Ll011 LOCKHEED TRISTAR LlOI 1
MD 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11
MD80 MCDOI�JNEI.L DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES
SW3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3
SW4 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SF34 SAAB 340 -
Aviation Noise & Sateilite Programs
Page 9
;�tetropolitan Airporu Commission
� . , ;„ r _ 1
, .: . ; ,� �' . ,_ �, . �
' .' II 1 � � , . . � � . � 1 1 �
Daytime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage t'�rrivals Percentage Total Day
Name Day Use IDay Use
04 19 0.1% 4 0.0% 23
11L 4348 23.$% 4205 22.6% 8553
11R 4324 23.6% 4328 23.3% 8652
22 186 1.0% 14 0.1 % 200
29L 5115 27.9% 5285 28.5% 10400
29R 4314 23.6% 4739 25.5% 9053
Total 18306 100% 18575 iQ0% 36$81
Nighttime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total i`Tight
Name Night Use Night Use
04 2 0.5% 1 0. I% 3
11L 74 19.7% 73 9.0% 147
11R 159 42.5% 115 14.2% 274
22 7 1.9% 1 0.1 % $
29L 80 21.3°Io � 413 S l. l% 493
29R 53 14.1°l0 206 25.5% 259
Totsl 3'75 100°!0 809 100% 1184
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
(Vtecropolitan �irpores Commission
Comrrr�unity �verflight Anaiysis
Minneapo(is - St. Paul International A,irport August 1996
Carrier Jet Operations - Atl Hours
Number Number Total Percent Number of
Overflight Area Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
Arrivals Departuces pperations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 5750 6050 11800 47.$% 391.0
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 0 123 123 0.5% 4.1
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 10 3 13 0.1% 0.4
Highland Park �
Over Eagan/ 6868 5863 12731 51.6% 421.8
Mendota Heights
Total 24667 100% 817.3
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am)
Number Number Total Percent Number of
Overflight Area A��� �p�,�� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
Operations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 96 82 178 22.2% 5.9
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 0 5 5 0.6% 0.2
Bloomington
Over S[. Paul - 0 2 2 0.2% 0.1
Highland Park
Over Eagan/ 489 128 617 77.0% 20.4
Mendota Heights
T'otal 802 100% 26.b
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page f 1
\�tetropolitan Airports Commission
� . � . � � � • ;� , ; �
• 11 1 ` . 1' � 1,• �',,� � ', � ,�
Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
\ a
1�letropolitan Airports Commiss�on
. . . r . . � \ ,� . .
, . ..
. � � r �.
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each R.1ViT
RMT Events Events Events � Events
ID Caty Approximate Street I.ocadon �$d� ��� 'qp�g >100dB
1 Minneapoiis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street l473 180 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1667 . 204 5 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2616 339 S l 1
4 Minneapotis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1840 634 66 2
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Sn�eet 2470 1396 219 6
� 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2119 1587 271 8
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 501 654 107 0
8 Minneapalis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 639 347 53 1
9 SG Paul Saratoga Strett & Hartford Avenue 44 21 1 0
t0 SG Pau! Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 63 . 9 4 0
11 St. Paul Finn Stre�t & Scheffer Avenue 33 11 0 0
12 SG Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 38 14 4 1
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 22Q4 399 29 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2769 518 95 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 2424 768 84 0
16 Eagan Avaion Avenue & V las Lane 2853 443 49 6
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 160 47 5 U
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 247 42 4 1
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 123 4 0 0
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 178 7 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1875 4t9 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2705 52 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3427 164 8 0
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 3327 216 0 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Aviation Noise & Satelli[e Programs
Page l3
:�tztropolican Airporrs Commi�sion
�
. •' •` �•'�� • � • � •� � • •
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each ItMT ��
RMT Events Events Events Events
ID City Approximate Street Location �5d8 >SOdB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 4lst Street 2184 247 t 0
2 Minneapo(is Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1980 692 12 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 3840 886 48 2
4 Minneapolis Oaktand Avenue & 49th Street 4017 1237 69 14
5 Minneapolis l2th Avenue & SSth Street 5656 34fi6 761 67
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & S�th Street 6650 3852 1332 335
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Strcet 2211 2$7 33 $
8� Minneapo(is Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1995 l$3 22 6
9 St. Paul ' SaCatoga Street & Hartfond Avenue 42 48 3 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 73 24 3 0
11 St. Pau! Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 69 10 0 0
l2 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 101 25 1 0
!3 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Couct 462 86 !7 0'
l4 Eagan First Street & Mc�Cee Sireet 2312 248 23 2
IS Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexingwn Avenue 2242 157 19 1
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & vlas Lane 2138 l039 65 13
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 375 29 � 16 0
18 Richfietd 75th Street & 17th Avenue 390 35 17 6
t9 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 173 26 t2 0
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 178 10 5 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1431 120 1 0
22 tnver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1104 t 18 1 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2938 634 l91 57
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1289 322 2 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Page 14 Aviation Noise & Sateltite Programs
�..
� )
Metropolitan Airports C:ommission
, , � . . , ♦ . . �'' . . �'
RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. � 41st St.
Ntinneapotis
Date Tic�e `�C �� �
'�y� Leeei
08/31/'9616:13:41 B72'7 93.6 D
08105/9619:06:11 DC9 89.4 A
08/24/96 21:29:01 , B727 88•7 �+
OS/13/96 8:22:17 B727 88.6 D
08/06/9618:12:55 DC9 88.3 A
08/07/96 9:28:24 B72'7 88.3 D
08/25/96 8:45:47 DC9 88.2 A
08/21/9619:20:43 B727 88.1 A
08/14/96 9:46:43 DC9 88.0 D
08/13/96 7:10:30 FK10 87.0 D
R1VIT #3: W. Elmwoosi S� 8c �elmont Ave.
I�tinneapolis
Date TIme AJC A�iezz �
'1'y� L,e�d
08/31/9616:14:26 B727 100.5 D
OS/06/'96 22:43:32 B727 lOD.3 A
O8/2219618:10:15 DC9 l�.l D
08/16/9612:35:13 8727 99•8 �
08/09/96 9:50:23 DC9 99.6 D
08/OS/96 21:22:13 B727 99•2 �
08/29/9611:26:50 B727 99.1 D
08/17/96 9:38:31 B727 98.8 D
08/29/96 8:20:20 DC 10 95.8 D
08/25/9614:55:51 B747 95.4 D
RMT #2: Eremont Ave. & 43rd St,
MinneapoUs
Datc 'lime - A/C . Max �
'Type I.evel
OS/23/966:55:30 B72� 97.6 D
08/23/96 6:42:02 DC9 96.8 D
08/13f96 6:31:36 B737 95.2 D
08/16/9611:49:30 B727 94.2 A
08/11/9612:14:31 B757 93.0 A
08/11/9617:07:51 B75'7 92.0 A
08/09/9517:15:10 B727 91.7 D
08/25/'96 6:44:07 B727 91.0 A
08/25/9613:10:14 B727 91.0 A
08/29/9612:23:05 B737 90.6 D
RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th S�
Ii�Iinneapolis
Date 1Yme A/C ARax �
Type Leve!
08/11/9611:32:52 B'727 t039 D
OS/13l96 1 t:31:44 DC9 103.0 D
08/17/9610:07:45 B727 l02.9 D
08/30/9611:28:58 B727 l02.6 D
08/l6/9612:39:18 B727 102.5 D
08/13P9611:44:42 B727 102.4 D
08/i l/96 17:22:25 B737 t02. l D
08l24/9617:12:34 DC9 102.1 A
08/l l/96 t 1:40:00 B737 101.7 D
08/12N611:43:37 B727 101.6 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page l5
Metropolitan Airpocts Commission
�.
'Ten Loudest Aircraft l�oise Events Ictentified
._ _
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St.
Minneapolis
Date Time ,�� M� A/D
Level
08/16/9617:29:36 B727 106.4 D
08/23/96 8:16:58 B727 L06.0 D
08/16/96 8:06:47 B737 105.7 D
08/24l9617:04:13 B72'7 105.7 D
08/02/96 9:54:36 DC9 105.6 A
08/09/96 20:43:57 DC9 105.4 A
08/30/9b 7:53:32 B72? lOS.2 D
08/20/�612:30:15 B727 104.9 A
08/Ol/9612:04:33 DC9 104J A
OS/08/9618:30:16 DC9 104.7 D
R1t�T #7: Wentwarth Ave. & 64tt� S�
Richfield
Date Tia�e ,� � A/D
08/26/'9612:14:02 DC9 103.2 D
08/09/96 7:44:34 DC9 101.3 D
08/(4/96 8:56:00 B727 101.3 D
08/24/96 i 1:44:08 DC9 100.4 D
08/22/96 8:25:29 B72'7 100.3 D
O8/OSN619:16:32 DC9 l00.1 D
08/09/'96 16:48:33 B727 t00. t D
08/22/96 8:27: t0 DC9 100.1 D
08/07/96 8:48:49 B727 99.8 D
08/29/'9612:17:50 B727 989 D
RMT #6: 2Sth Ave. & 57th S� �'
Minneapotis
Date Trne �C Max �
Type Leeel
. 08/13/9613:31:46 B727 111.3 D
08/t6/9617:03`19 DC9 111.0 D
08/01/9618:46:10 DC9 110.8 D
OS/13/9611:31:25 B737 IIOS D
08/11/96 t 1:32:29 DC9 1 t0.1 D
O8/16/9613:51:16 B737 110.1 D
08/0'7/9611:20:32 B72'7 1Q9.7 �D
08/12/96 11:43:18 B737 109.6 D
08/24/96 Z0:51:29 DC 10 109.5 D
08/13/9611:53:21 DC9 109.3 D
• RMT #Ss �ongfetlow Ave. & 43rd S�
Minneapolis
Date Time A/C 1l�faa �
Z�pe Level
081�07/9613:28:47 DC9 102.2 D
08/22/9611:58:40 B'727 102.0 D
08/07/9614:40:31 B737 101.5 A
081�01/9618:46:36 B727 101.2 D
08/13J96 t3:32:09 DC9 101.2 D
08/Ci8/9613:34:25 B72'7 lO1.0 D
08!!4/96 12:00:20 DC 10 100.7 D
08/16/9613:51:40 DC9 100.0 A
081�07/9615:12:32 DC9 99.9 A
08/03/96 t2:25:04 B727 94.t D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropoliran Airports Commiss�on
Ten Loudes� A�rcraft l�toise Even� ident�fied
I2M'�' #9: Saratoga Si. & Hartford Ave.
S� I'aul
Date Titr�e .�� M� �
Level
08/I 1/96 21:04:21 DC9 96.1 D
08/06/96 22:15:09 DC9 94.9 D
08/14/9618:46:14 DHS 91.9. D
08/30/'96 20:56:20 B727 91.0 A
OS/31l9617:48:07 B737 89.3 .�� A
08/11/9617:43:53 SF34 88.9 J A
08/31/'�617:57:50 B727 58.1 A
08/25/'96 23:20:25 B727 87.'7 A
08/26/96 9:27:45 DC9 87.0 D
08/24/'96 14:27:46 DC 10 85.8 A
RM'T #11: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave.
S� Paul
Date Tiu� ,�� � .�/�
08/ 13/96 9:43:4b S W4 89.0 D
08/29l9612:08:51 8727 87.2 A
08/OS/9610:14:58 MD80 87.1 D
08/15/96 9:57:27 B737 86.6 A
08/20/'9610:10:04 DC9 $6.5 A
08/27/96 9:47:32 FK 10 86.5 D
08/29l96 21:14:32 SF34 86.5 D
08/13/96 9:42:4 t BA31 86.4 D
08/14/9618:46:07 B757 85.6 D
08/27/96 9:49:03 DC9 84.6 D
RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & �owdoin St.
St. Paut
A/C Max
Date Time �e . Gevel �
08/24/96 21:29:01 B727 96.2 D
08l24/96 21:39:51 B727 94.4 D
08l25/96 23:19:54 B727 92.6 A
08/11/9619:43:56 CL65 92.0 D
08/31/96 1'7:46:38 DC 10 92.0 A
O8/13/'96 9:52:06 B737 90.8 A
08/14/9618:49:31 B727 90.5 A
08/28/96 22:18:42 B727 87.3 A
OS/31/9618:.01:23 DC9 86.7 A
08/14/9612:17:00 B727 85.7 D
RMT #12s Alton S� & Rockwood Ave.
S� Paut
Date '19nx •�/C l�iax �
'i'ype I,evet
08/14/96 18:47:47 B727 1�.2 A
08l30/96 9:03:53 BE33 97.0 A
08/QS/9610:OI:08 BE02 94.4 D
OSr26/96 21:19:05 SW4 91.0 A
08/14/9618:39:04 MD80 90.2 A
08/14/96 21:05:55 SF34 90.1 A
O8/266/'�96 9:47:06 EA32 89.5 A
08/16/96 13:55:20 LR25 � 88.5 A
08/�02/�6 22:36:25 B727 87.1 D
08R0/96 21: (3:38 DC9 86.2 A
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 dars
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 17
�lecropolitan Airports Commission �
. . •
'lCen I.�oudest Aircrafi I�ioise Events Ider�tified
RMT #13: Southeast End of 1�lohican Court
Mendota Heights
Date Tirne ,�� M� A/p
Level
08/31/9617:06:36 B727 99.3 D
08/10/9616:55:17 B727 97.3 D
08/06/9615:39:22 B727 96.8 D
08/ 17/96 11:42:12 DC9 96.5 D
08/17/9619:02:45 B727 95.4 D
OS/10/9611:32:31 DC9 94.8 D
08/30/96 20:43:19 B727 94.7 �:
08/17/9615:00:25 B727 94.0 D
08/28/9616:45:09 DC9 94.0 D
08/10/95 9:3 t:10 MD80 93.5 D
RMT #15: Cullon S� & Lexington Ave.
Ntendota Heights
AJC Maz
Date Tt�e � Levd �
08/10/9617:23:09 B727 I00.6 D
08/06/9619:05:11 B727 99.3 D
08/04/96 9:54:03 B737 99A D
08/04/'96 13:18:5 l DC9 98.0 D'
08/04�'9618:37:48 B727 97.7 D
08/04/'9618:57:40 B727 97.5 D
08/03/96 7:46:45 B727 97.4 D
08/18�'9617:05:46 B72? 97.2 D
OS/03/9614:50:23 B737 96.5 A
08/l4/9617:29:00 B727 94.9 D
RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St. (
Eagan
Date Z5me `�c �� q/D
Type Level
08/2�l9614:46:22 DC9 l00.9 D
08/29/9616:15:52 B727 100.1 D
' 08/ 18/96 8:30:18 DC9 99.8 A
08/21/96 8:45:40 DC9 99.8 D
OS/21l'9611:38:24 B73'7 99.5 D
08/OS/9612:00:46 B727 99.4 D
08/03/96 7:51:24 B72'7 99.1 D
08/31/96 9:08:03 B727 98.9 D
08/21/'96 Z:28:33 B727 98J A
08/28196 7:52:23 DC9 98.1 D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & �las Lane
Eagan
08/ 1 1196 8:42:27
08l05/96 10:41:23
08/OS/96 8:54:10
08/ 19/96 17:47:00
08/31/96 14:09:16
08/O5/'96 9:46:36
08/27/'96 7:46:03
OS/02/96 12:24:14
08/ t 7/96 14:20:27
08/04�96 7:53: l0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Page (8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
A/C Ma�c �
Type Level
DC9 102.7 A
DC9 102.6 D
B727 102.1 D
DC9 l02.1 A
8727 101.9 D
B727 101.7 D
DC9 101.3 D
8737 101. i D
B727 101.1 D
8727 t00.9 D
�.
Metropolitan Aitpons Commission
• � �'. . , �; . ., ,�. .�
RMT #17: 84th S� & 4th Ave.
Btoomington
Date Time ,Ty� �� A/D
Leve!
08/27/9611:23:49 DC9 99.2 D
08/25/9610:53:29 DC9 99.0 D
08/23/96 9:08:05 DC9 97.9 D
08/21/9615:59:12 B727 97.8 A
08/25/9616:05:43 B747 97.8 . A
08/3119615:11:33 B747 97.8 D
08/20/9619:20:54 B747 97.7 A
08/25/9611:12:00 B727 94.8 D
08/09/96 7:34:21 DH8 94.3 D
08/06/96 7:34:29 B727 92.5 A
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th S�
Bloomington
Date Ti� � � A/D
08/301'96 22:52:39 B727 9�.5 D
08/06l°96 22:15: i2 DC9 96.5 D
08/20/9610:17:01 B747 96.4 D
08/28/96 6:19: t2 B727 96.1 D
08/25/'96 16:24:19 DC 10 95.5 D
08/28l96 6:15:27 B727 95.0 D
08/31/96 6:09:49 B727 93.9 D
08/24/96 6:58:09 8727 93.0 D
08/25/96 7:15:54 B727 92.3 D
08/20/96 9:10:27 DC9 91.9 D
:�
itIVIT #18: 75th S� & 17th Ave.
Richfie(d
Date Time �C �� A/D
T'ype Leve!
08/09l'96 7:14:49 B72� 102.6 D
08/25/96 5:08:10 B72'7 101.8 D
08/08/96 7:09:24 B727 101.7 D
08/25/9616:13:35 DC9 101.7 D
08/21/9615:58:53 B727 101.6 A
08/31/'9615:11:14 B747 101.6 D
08/23/96 9:07:53 DC9 101.0 D
OS/25.9616:05:29 B737 99.8 A
08/06/96 22:14:39 I,C9 99.6 A
08/25/9612:59:29 B727 99.6 D
RMT #20: 75th Si. & 3rd Ave.
Richfield
A/C A�IaY
Date 'Igme �� Level `�
08/18/9614:32:19 DC9 93.4 D
08/19/9612:49:45 DC9 92.5 D
08/27/96 t 3:22:37 DC 10 • 91.3 D
08/()6/96 22:13:44 DC9 90.4 D
08/25/96 22:37:42 B727 90.4 D
08/31/'96 6:51:40 B727 90.0 D
08/06/96 9:08:27 DC9 88.1 D
08/13l96 22:Z2:22 DC 10 88.0 A
08/23/96 t0:21:51 DC9 88.0 A
08/13/96 9: t7:20 BE58 87.1 A
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 duys
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 19
Metropo(i[an Airports Commission
�
. � �. . � � . . ,�• ��'
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S�
Inver Grove Heights
Date Ti� �C Max �
Type Level
08/07/96 9:50:34 DC9 90.5 D
08/44/9614:14:36 B727 $8.4 D
08/10�'96 (6:55:57 MD80 88.2 p
08/24/9614:40:55 B 727 87.5 D
OS/26/9615:01:55 DC9 87S D
08/27�'9618:41:55 DC9 87.3 D
08/21/9618:22:00 SF34 87.1 D
08/28/9611:13:13 B727 87.0 D
OS/04/96� 15:24:41 B747 86.9 D
08/ 18/96 12:14:28 L?C9 86.8 D
i2MT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota I-�eights
Date Ttme ``�c M� �
Type Levd
OS/07/9610:00:30 B�27 105.2 D
08/09/9617:00:30 B727 105.1 D
OS/07/9618:00:30 B727 104.5 D
08/09/96 8:00:30 DC9 104.5 D
08/07/96 9:00:30 B727 104.4 D
08/07/96 O:W:30 B727 104.3 D
08/07/96 4:00:30 DC9 103.9 D
08/0919616:00:30 DC9 103.8 D
08/06/96 t3:00:30 8727 l03J D
02I21/95 20:52:46 DC9 L03.0 D
Page ?0
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
Date �me A/C Max �
Type� Level
08/21l9614:57:02 DC9 90.4 p
08/24/9615:0L•3'7 B727 89.8 D
08/OS/'96 8:55:07 B727 88.0 D
08/26/9614:55:16 MD80 88.0 p
08/04/9612:09:3'7 SW3 87.6 D
08/28l'9611:29:11 B727 87.4 D
08/30/9616:09:31 B727 86.6 D
08/03/'96 8:01:06 DC9 86.4 D �
08/05/96 7:�16:33 . BA31 86.3 D
08/10/'96 9:45:19 DC9 86.1 D
ItiVIT #24r Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
Date Tdme A/C Max � •
'Pypc Levei
08/30/9616:18:26 B727 94.0 D
08/Z9/9614:30:15 DC9 90.5 D
08/29/9616:16:09 B727 . 88.4 D
08/31/96 9:08:20 B�27 87.2 D
08/30/9616:08:58 B727 86.9 D
0$!30/9616:Q4:02 8747 84,9 p
08/3 t/96 8:43:43 B727 83.1 D
08/31/'96 9:19:05 DC9 82.8 D
08/30/9616:39:07 B72'7 82.5 D
O8/3 i/'96 9:42:15 B727 81.8 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Pcograms
t
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Flight �'raC�C� �ase l�ap
Airport Notse and Operations IVionitoring Systerr�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 21
;�, ��; :,. . '�;,����, �:1i.��%iill
'► �'� � '* ,; ��:��,�1:'�"7/IIE''
.., ,,-�, �, ; :,� ;� .,�`�i��!
' ` �` ;. �, r.;; �� :� `�\'' .1 ,
:����'. �, s.,,�t ; � \�`���.•�r�i
, � ,
' + \ `��.����+.f
_ ``�a ,�' '��A.i` � ���\/1�1:....
� ��_ •� � �
_ , � ,�p�►:-��� ' �,\'1 �� Nr.•.:
. i," � `•,���� �1��� _
�_F II� ��
�r � �� // r ��r . � `G :
��i'ij����t j�' .;.._ �` �'.
_p . /. � �1i�•.
_ � i �I � t��M1I � fjp�'� j�j��%
:� u\ � I /1 ., -
�� 1��., .
y� � r
`����C�/ r
���'r �'� • \a /i
%""'..r �\:��\ � a
_,----__-"..,��,�,_.___��!=.= , -
,�� t
rjwi�/�►"ir' � `
/ �_'����;U'`�``,�,���
rf..��.-i-- I�j�h `\..!ti`•.: •
'•� ���.���►; �n�
�\ \��' v `� �
`.� .� � ti � �� a 1���'�
,'��\`� .l, `�
a\ s� •
.,•
••\ •'l�,�1,� _
. \,,., .- �- .
� �
�� � � �� �\`� � .
."`� �_` ` , �.
_ ►```
� ,
� - _ ►•(�- � t��� .
'�, _. i ? ; � ,
: I �� ,
.
r� �1� ��`,,I ,,
�, � ;•�wr�►��� -
��.Y II,/'�.�` . ♦ �
,' 1��� �� ����,\ � ��
.
.��`�\\'�.�11• ��'.': ``
. ;�`� � � t►,1���,, - \;.�.,: �
; •.+�,.. ,/I : ., .��,.
��� � � �`�1�%i � . �� � : ;�
� �� •
. ��\ � � �/�.i�;. ' . � �;�:
. < S � . � �.
.. . • K � ^ �.1,\'•'\\ \\\�
. . 1 ; \ ,�` \\\\\
�,,, �h�, .
;`n!` , � hr�v� \�\,
;���,,..:� '� :���►.
, -�
��'��.
. . . . �. ;
. e;.. •,• •
QM:iI�`r, " `- :.
�, .�"'_•� ;.'� . . _ . ..
���� �����rGu
_ _ _ �•.�i:�:�''�i
.::,\\_��� ,��_
....t��;i���'�
�.;� =�j`�r,►
���- f,.
, ..—+,�_
,,�:;• _ -
,i: .1�'`�,'•
•�lb� - -
� „ _
� /�% �,��►.�`'' /�-,
,��; ��1 �Vt�✓ ► _ r i6
�'� - : :�.,"v r .st.
� i :,. -
r I► -
• - �ti• r`�,,,�4�
� ,
. `. �iVJ
rL.. :•.. '� :
=- ` . ' .. .
►��-���
��:�.�i= �
v...��--� �, ; . .
=,�,,,".--�'i ����t��.�����; � � �
� '
^'�i
��\� t �
. .� n
Ifrt.�►'�II��►� �'., � � ,'►�:.. ` �'
� � : `��` -
:.,,.
c� � - ..
_ �
�� � ;-
: ,� :�
�� �`:`�,�� : • ' -
.
"' +� .���`
c` _ .�,n. ' ••" �
_"- 1` � \"� �``��'\�
_ - � ' �i�����j► •�' •.
��!4�� � �.����;
� . i� �" ,�`��-�.,: ` �
- t. �,�� s,��`,.:'
r'i/,!�/ 1• '��.l.► :
, j� N�i,�,, �„
` �'I,� 4 / .ti .��
� ;. �I��/�
`� :.�:,���►'
: ,
:a►.�, = ��''
• `���:.�i�'_ .
. . : � _� _ :•'.
'.,:� -:
� .
, .
':,,�: ..
:�t�tropolitan �.irports Commi;sion
- Analysis of Aircrafi I�oise Events - Aircraft L,tin ci�{A)
August Ol to August 31, 1996
I�loise Monitor Locations
Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #$ #9 #10 #11 #12
( 60.4 49.8 67.5 70.2 77.5 82.3 70.1 69.1 39.� 49.3 47.6 47.9
2 57.6 51.5 67.2 70.5 75.9 76.5 63.2 60.8 43.9 52.9 43.6 56.7
3 58.2 53.3 67.6 65.6 71.4 71.6 45.0 58.0 41.2 56.2' S7.1 48.8
4 60.2 60.1 68.5 66.4 71.9 73.0 49.3 56.0 43.2 52.3 49.1 46.8
5 59J * 67.1 72.2 77J 82.1 64.9 63.9 45.0 52.2 40.1 53.2
6 60.0 * 73.3 69.8 75.8 * 609 58.5 61.2 57.1 51.2 56.0
'7 58.2 61.1 64.9 69.1 76.8 * 67.6. 67.8 45.8 50.0 45.2 48.1
$ 58.7 58.2 64.6 69.0 76.7 81 J 69.6 71.2 46.6 47A 44.4 55.4
9 59.5 58.2 68.1 67.1 76.6 79.5 67.3 63.'1 4'7.7 39.8 51.1 48.5
lp 57.6 48.1 65.3 64.8 70.1 71.4 51.8 54A 3'7.0 51.7 56. t 42.6
11 53A 61.6 67.2 70.6 75. t 81.6 � 66.8 fi6.2 62.2 50.6 49.3 48.3
12 � 53.9 58.0 653 69.3 77.8 82.3 68.4 679 48.7 � 52.6 44.6 54.8
13 58.4 65.1 64.1 71.2 �6.8 82.0 '70.0 68.4 429 50.3 S 1.3 51.5
14 59.2 62.4 66.7 70.8 75.7 82.5 70.5 68.9 50.$ 60.0 55.9 55.9
15 59.2 62.0 66.9 69.9 76.8 82.4 71.6 68.0 41.4 45.5 44.3 49.1
16 59.9 60.7 66.9 73.3 77.9 83.2 68.9 68.3 42.6 52.1 44.7 54.9
l'7 54.5 50.2 64.4 66.8 72.5 75.3 59.9 59.2 38.4 51.8 46.9 44.5
($ 58.0 6t.9 68.1 66.1 71.4 72.1 48.6 54.4 52.5 56.2 43. I 44.3
19 59.9 56.4 67.2 68.1 74.1 81.7 66.1 64.9 � 58.7 47.1 46.3 47.4
Zp 56.0 61.3 65.0 67. t 74.6 78.2 66.0 59.5 51.5 49.2 50.7 48.0
2l 57.7 55.2 66.9 66.4 7t.2 73.? 50.6 55.5 52.0 58.7 47.1 53.6
. 22 57.7 57.8 69.1 71.6 77.7 82.6 70.9 65.3 42.9 43.7 40.7 4b.2
23 55.7 69.0 6 L6 67.3 72.3 78.5 62.6 62.4 45.9 44.7 44.4 55.9
24 51.1 59.8 60. l 64.8 72.3 7�.8 65.2 * 48.6 59.2 44.7 5 t.9
25 52.5 59.2 63.7 G9.4 75.7 82.4 67.0 65.5 55.8 62.9 443 51.7
26 * * 64.8 67.9 73.6 77.9 66.4 65.9 44.0 • 48A 44.7 62.4
2'7 58.3 53.9 63.9 65.0 70.4 73.4 61.8 62.1 44.5 55.6 51.9 52.7
2$ 56.2 53.5 63.0 64.0 68.6 71.5 60.0 55.1 50.5 59.5 47.3 51.0
29 57.8 54.3 65.8 65.7 74.8 76.6 64.4 61.6 44.2 54.4 50.5 5 t.0
30 57.0 54.9 63.8 69.7 75.1 79.5 66.4 67.0 48.8 53.5 43.3 593
31 55.3 49.0 66.0 60.4 69.7 71.7 62.8 54.5 51.8 59.4 52.3 55.0
Mo. Ldn 59.7 67.3 69.5 71.6 �6.1 82.0 69.8 68.1 58.4 57.1 54.9 53.9
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.82 days
Page ?6 Aviation Noi� & Satetlite Programs
(.
� .
° Less thun tx•enn• fnur hours ujdcuu uvuiluh/e
( i
Metropo(itan Airports Commissior
Analysis of Aircra�t Noise Events • Aireraft Ldn dE�(A�
August O1 to August 31, 1996
Noise Monitor Locations
Date #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #l� #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24
1 40.4 63.3 423 67.7 53.0 47.7 47.9 52.2 56.4 57.3 77.9 55.3
2 64.5 703 70.4 72.9 50.8 54.4 44.5 46.2 63.4 62.8 82.6 43.9
3 64.0 68.6 69.2 71.6 42.0 47.7 48.6 43.5 60.1 59.9 83.8 56.8
4 65.4 67.3 69.4 71.2 46.1 44.7 46•0 41.9 61.2 59.0 84.1 45.8
$ 62.4 68.1 65.0 73.6 46.6 51.3 54.2 4$.0 59.4 60.7 85.0 41.1
6 64.7 70.1 67.6 73.4 61.4 64.5 61.4 59.0 60.4 61.0 S 1.4 52.1
'7 52.1 65.1 57.7 69.5 5�.6 * 48.5 57.9 57.6 60.5 88.7 45.5
g ' 41.4 fi8.4 54.1 71.0 5 t. l * 49.1 51.8 51.7 * 88.6 48.6
9 61.3 68.0 62.5 74.5 51.9 59.4 52.4 49.3 60.0 61.4 83.9 49.8
10 66•5 69•2 68.0 71.2 44.1 * * * 61.7 61.7 72.1 53.8
11 52.8 64.4 55.8 68.9 44.8 * 46.6 45.7 50.2 55.6 773 53.5
12' 47.0 63.1 60.9 68.5 45.8 * 49.0 48.2 44.7 56.4 77.1 52.7
13 49.7 63.2 60.3 69.2 53.7 53.8 50.5 59.4 52.6 57.8 82.5 57•8
14 47.2 65.0 53.4 * 49.3 49.3 40.3 50.6 44.2 59.1 78.8 45.4
15 53.2 63.4 57.6 67.6 53.9 * 51.5 51.8 55.3' S6.6 82.7 '�6• l
16 . 48.6 62.5 58.0 67.2 51.6 * 43.7 49.3 48.3 55.9 81.4 58.6
l'] 6q.,5 68.9 66.0 70.8 46.4 413 47.4 43.7 60.7 60.0 82.1 51.7
ig 64,g 68.6 68.0 71.1 43.9 46.1 47.7 41.5 62.5 59.6 81.6 54.3
19 63.1 66.9 65.3 72.2 49.1 49.8 48.3 � 48.9 58.5 59.3 79.6 45.2
ZQ 63.6 69.6 66.0 72.6 57.0 * 58.3 52.1 59.9 62.0 88.1 40.2
2l 66.3 7p.g 69.2 73.6 56.4 * 51.5 40.6 • 63.7 63.3 79.3 41.1
22 55.8 64.1 50.8 69.5 52.4 * 50.0 54.7 46.9 58.5 79.3 46.5
23 44.1 59.2 51.8 64.5 58.4 * 55.2 50.8 * 52.7 76.5 47.8
24 46.6 62.1 56.2 67.3 54.5 69.6 67.0 48.6 47.2 54.8 83.1 49.0
� 45.5 61.9 52.2 67.8 60.0 67.1 62.5 61.3 47.4 56.8 77.3 4b.3
26 63. ! 67.2 66.0 71.0 46.7 51.8 49.4 43.9 63.7 61.8 81.5 49.9
27 65.7 71.4 67.8 72.1 60. t 49.4 42.3 50.3 64. t 63.0 75.4 59.1
28
67.0 70.8 fi8.3 75.3 55.7 65.7 68.2 54.4 63.8 63.8 79.6 *
29
63.4 71.0 67.9 72.3 453 56.3 61.0 47.1 62.8 63.0 78.4 *
30 63.9 67.8 68.0 71.0 53.8 65.3 67.0 54.0 62.3 61.3 78.0 60.4
31 62.3 65.8 63.2 70.6 63.9 68.7 65.3 60.8 59.0 58.0 73.4 59.3
�` � Mo. Ldn 66•2 70.5 69.1 73.9 60.8 68.5 66.3 57.9 63.9 62.1 83.2 58.7
n-
�., �---
- 1Vote: AIt / J ttara mwsuig �vr �.�� �.�
' Less fhan tx•ent�• fi�ur h��urs nfdam ��,���h�e Page 27
Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs
C
:.---.: __=------� -..�---- --=
... .. ... .,, .. ��.. ....�.. ......, . ,... r; ..��. �+�� ��.'� .n,�..
.. . . .. �. .. � � . . .. � . .�/ '...
/
/
1 �.,/' _._.----�
--� � '�•-.a..::_ •.•�"_..,.+..--'''
� �. .
;:; . . . , ,
. ,.: � � .. � � J ' li �
_
- /
� , ��.�� ��/
'
:Y'
+.rr ..+srr��r�i .�� �
- r��r���rr' 1 .�
. . � ,��ii���r+rir��
�l��wrr'-�r_rr� � '��Air
--------__'��� � ���'/
` . . �
. .�
: '•,
._ .
. , �
—,,,� � Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
� ��
�� " MONTHLY MEETlNG - Metropo[itan Airport Sound Abatement Council
c�,;,,�,:
Robert P. Johavoa
Ycr C7uu'rnnrc
Scon Bunls
Technical Ad�rsoc
.ta�n easai•
.,��,�a s«���:
H�u� s���
.4irbarne Esprtss:
ertan euee
A;r rronrporr Associwrian:
Pani McGraw
,���:
C6a�in W. Curry Jr.
cily of atoamington: �
Pet7'oa� [.ce
v�� wuW:
Cirv oJBumsviUr.
Ed Ptxter
rrv ofe,�m,:
Ibm Epa
Cirv oj/m•er Grwe Neightr:
Dalc Hammooe
Ciry ojMarlwn Neightr:
Jill Smitli
Citv ojMinneapdir:
Jamen & Semi.
��. x,�b��
��
JudliL Dodge
Crtv ajRichfreld•
� ��
CIfY Of Si. �OIfIS �ll�:
Ro1xrt Adrcws
cr� o�sr. tt�:
c. scon esde
1'6omae H. Haeg
Carol Aom McGeire
De/m Airlinex /nc.:
Rk! Khlwel!
federd Esprerr: � �
�.. ntmm
Federd Aviana� Admitiarmtian:
8rnce Weg�omr
Raaid Gla.b
MAC Srap:
Llkfc Ketu
,NBM.•
Robert P. JoYsoa
Mesaba Nonh werr Ai�iink•
n�i sr«r..
Metrq�ditan Airyorts Canunirrim:
Camm�dooer'Attaa Gr{wr
MN Air Naria�a/ Guad:
�1a)or Ro� J. Sbetlia
Narthwert Ai�liur
Nark Satme•
.r�ovr« s.,�.
St. Pmd Gbmnbrr a%Comnrrce:
J�t e�r,
s� c�,�,�,u.�;��r
n� K:rty.
uniree Airlines /ne:
BI! Yutls
u�rr�e tt��� s��,��:
Steve Wdker
U.S Air forcr Rererve:
c.puts n.vrt �. cerker
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
�_ I
l.) Promote pubtic wetfaze and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and Gransportation. internationa(, national, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce: assure the inclusion of this state in national and intemational
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation faci(iaes in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effecdve use of aeronautic facilities and services in that azea;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum envimnmental impact
from air navigadon and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
contro! of airport area land use. and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's envimnmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards azound airports.
Metropolitan Aarcraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general wetfare of the communides
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Faul Internationa! Air�ort - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation af
the probtems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a candnuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviaaon o,'
the same; through initiation, coocdination and promotion of reasonable and effectiv�
procedures, controt and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same: and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users � of the airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
inidated and taken to alleviate the probtem.
Metropotitan Aircratt Sound Abateenent Council
Repc�sentation
The membership shall include representadves appointed by agencies, corporations,
associadons and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users.
have a direct interest in the oFeradon of the airport. Such members will be cal(ed Usec
R4presentatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Pc�:�lic Representatives shatl at all times be equal in number.
The : iirpoR 24•hour Noise Hotline is 726-94/1.
Comptaints to the hotline do nnt �sult in changes
in Airport activity, but provides a public sowding
board and airport informauon oudet. The hodine
is staf�ed 24-hours Morsday - Friday
This repoR is ptepared and printed in house by
Traci Erickson, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC - Aviation Noise & Satellite Program
Minneapotis / St. PaW International Airpon
6040 28th Aveaue South
Minneapotis, 11�QY 55450
TeL• (612) �25-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310
ANSP Home Paaei httu:l/www.macavsat.ort!'
Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs • �. "°=�
� o������ . .
Operations and Complaint Summary � 1
Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1
MSP September Fleet Mix Percentage ................................................................................1
Airport September Complaint Summary ..............................:..........:................................... l
September Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ...............................................1
,��� "i , i � ;i • i� � i i i
ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2
. � �� , , � � � .
TowerLog Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3
Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ......................•--.........................:.............................3
Runway Use Report September 1996 ..................................................................................4
i � '� /i � i �
RunwayUse Report September 1996 ..................................................................................5
, , . ��, � � �
.
Runway Use Report September 1996 ............:..........................:..........................................6
, , �. ,, ,; �i, i �
�
- Runway Use Report September 1996 ..................................................................................7
i • ,, I'�, � � � �, �
. � �,, , � � I'� � � ii'� �'
' � i , I� , ', ��' . ��, � � �
DaytimeHours ................................................................................................................... t 0
Community Overflight Analysis 11
�,-__ _' Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours .....................................................................................11
. Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (1 lpm - 6 am) .............................................................11
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �
�
Rerriote Monitoring S�te Locataons 12
Carrier ,Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 13
�,.
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ...................................:.................13
t � � / •/ � � ' � � ��` �' � � �
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ..:.............................................14
�. `� �', . � � , , �, �i
, � �. .. � � , , �, -,�;
, � �, . � � , , �, ,�
, ' � �. . � � , , �, ,�
, � � , . � � , , � , ,, �
, � �' ,, . � � , , , i , , i
:i
.
•:
�
/
Flight T'rack .�ase 11�ap 21
e e s • • s �
Aarport Noase arad Uperatnons Monitoring System Flight 7'racks 22
Carrier Jet Operations - September 1996 ...........................................................................22
�4irport Noase ar�d Oper�ons 11�Ponatoring System Flight Tracks 23
Carrier Jet Operations - September 1996 ...........................................................................23
Airport 1Voise and' Operatrons Monatorin,g System Flight Tracks 24
Carrier Jet dperations - September 1996 .......................................................................... 24
Airport Noise and Operati°ons Monatoring System Flight Tracks 25
Carrier Jet Ogerations - September 1996 .......................................................................... 25
�lnalysis of Aircra,�'t Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
14nalysis of �4ircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
�
�
_ ...--_--�,:.� .. ..__ �,��,. � .�.� . C
�. .a.--....� �',y� .�: c.':�.arxc 'iiR45'iA'�du1c ;..... . . �.atp . " J v.%'n:> :..
' .l' " . "
yl
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs '
Metropoiitan Airports Commission `:
• , � . I
' C�perations a�d Cor�pdaie�t �u��nary
. � September 1996 �
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
i
Runway Arrival % Use I)eparture % �Jse
04 97 0.5% 63 0.4% I
" 22 28 0.2% , 644 3.6% I
1 t 8693 48.2% 8685 48.4% '
29 9248 51.1 % 854 t 47.6% 1
.Y-:t::
MSI' September Fleet Mix P'ercentage
Stage Scheduled � Scheduled ANON�.S ANOMS
1995 1996 Count 1995 Count 1996
Stage 2 53.3% 47.8% 52.3% 48.8%
Stage 3 46.7% 52.2% 47.7% 51.2%
Airport September Cornptaint Summaay
Airport 1995 199b
MSP 1561 2061
Airlake 0 2
Anoka 4 5
Crystal 0 0
Flying Cloud 7 13
Lake Elmo 0 0 �
S� Paui 6 0
Misc. 2 5
TO'TAL 1580 2I186
September Operations Summary - Aicport Dirr�cctors Office
1995 1996
Air Carrier 774 803
Commuter 315 338
G.A. 132 151
Military 10 10
Air F�+eight 41 36
C,t�"�, 10 9
T,� .� ..1282� 1347 '
,�r � . � .
.. • . :..+wioi ..� .. . : .:1'r�... .
�Aviation Noise &c Satellite Programs
Page t
.�tetropc>ut,�n .-�irpurt� �.ummis�ion •
Minneapolis - St. Paul Internatio�ial Aia-pori Corn�;laint Sur��rna'ry
� September 1996 Co�nplain� Sumanary by City �
1 � :,;:,; :��:::
�s?i:
.a�:.�r �,. . • vr:+=� •
Page 2
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs -
� '
> yr_ .
�
�
Availab(e Tirr�e for �tua�way LTse
Tower Log Reports - Septernber 1996
Al! Hours
0%
0
40%
0%
-A,.,
\
9%
10%
Nighttime �Iours
0%
0%
16%
`.-�
,..,,
0%
�
S%
� .:. ,,,.�,.�:.:
�r: '.�%;�:� �. '� ^ ' . ;:;}+,
n• `-:':��A!w'�._ ..,.,r-.•-�.�m,... ...._�: . .. . . .
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�tilz[ropalitan �irpuct� t_,�mm����un
59%
60%
84%
82%
Page 3
Ivtetropolitan Airpor[s Commission
' :.:•.t''.�.
'� • �:� :i ��:
. �::;. - .
Page 4
A�l Operatio�s
_
12unway Use �2eport Septemb�er 1996
0.4 °10
Aa�ivaV 3eptember September
Itunway �p�� Count Percentage 1995 Count 1995
Percentage
04 A 97 0.5% 357 2.0%
11L A 4434 � 24.5°Io 4363 24.1%
11 R A 4259 23.7% 4481 24.8%
�2 A 28 0.2°k 305 l.7%
29G A 4633 25.6°k 4403 24.3%
29R A 4615 25.5% 4171 23.1%
Total t�rc. 180G6 100% 18080 1Q0%
04 � D 63 0.4% $7 0.5%
11 G D 4499 25.1 °Xo 4833 27.0%
l 1 R D 41$6 23.3% 4639 25.8%
22 D 644 3.6% 613 3.4%
29L D 4503 25.1 %a 4047 22.6%
29R D 4038 22.5% -3708 20.7%
,. T�` , p:-. ;17933 y100% <':' 17927 � 100%
�� �� �' Note: ARTS data missine for 2.25 davs
� • Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�"
,:..,�
. �:�::
.sr�. . ^�z:�:�.
� . , • � . . 1 : �
Runway Use
Report Septemb�er 1996
0.1%
Metropolitan Airpons �:ummission
September
Runway �p�� Count Percentage 1�5 Co nt 1995
. Per�entage
04 A 24 0.2% 207 1.8%
11L A 2864 � 24.9% 2$07 24.3%
11R A 2543 22.1% 2836 24.6%
22 A 7 0.1% 182 1.6%.
29L A 2904 25�.3% ' 2783 24.1%
29R A 3145 27.4% 2717 23.6%
TotAl Arr. 11487 100% 11532 lU0%
04� D 13 0.1% 14 0.1%
11 L D 2737 24.0% 296$ 25.8%
11 R D 2743 24.1 °ib 3209 27.9%
22 � D 451 4.0% 415 3.6%
29I. D 2$92 25.4% 2728 23.7%
29R D 2553 22.4% 2161 18.9%
'-T'� '.;�`: P� 11389 �100�-':� '11495 :100%
E� :
[vvte:'Atct� aara m�sscng�vr c.�� uuy�•
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 5
`.
Vtetropolitan Airports Commis;ion
� • • � 1 • . 1 .
' . • '•'!1 •i'•r '1. ��i,
�
� �
.S@ptCII1beT
Runway �p�re Count Percentage 1995 Co nt 1995
Percentage
44 A 24 3.9% 39 7.2%
11 L A 76 12.4% 42 7.7%
11 R A 40 6.5%a 21 3.9%
22 A 2 0.3% 93 17.1%
29L A 148 24.1% 202 37.1%
29R A � 324 52.8% 147 27.0%
Total A.rr. 614 100°!0 544 100%
04� D 17 5.6% 23 9.8%
i 1 L D l 34 43.9% 80 34.1 %
11 R D 63 20.7% 60 25.5%
22 D 52 17.0% 51 21.7%
29L D 10 3.3% 16 6.8%
__ _ 29R _ D 29 9.5% 5 _ 2.1% �
' Total De�: ; 305 :: '- ; � 100°h"�' 235 . ,: , 100%
Note: ARTS�data missing for 2.25 days
Page 6 � Aviation Noise & SateCfite°Programs
�
��1etropotitan Airports Commission
Nighttirne Carrier Jet Operations
lZunway Use
h2eport Septemb�ee� 1996
3.1%
September
Runway �p�� Count Pen�entage 1995 Co nt 1995
. Percentage
04. A 3 0.7% 22 5.5%
11 L A 40 9.6% 28 7.0%
11 R A 20 4.8% 16 4.0%
22 A 1 0.2% 63 15.7%
29L A 107 25.7% ' 152 37.9%
29R A 246 59.0%a 120 29.9%
Total Arr. 417 100% 401 104%
04 D 5 3.1 % 3 2.2%
11 L D 79 49.1 °lo S 1 37.2%
11 R D 34 2 l.1 °k 38 27.7%
22 D 23 14.3% 34 24.8%
29L D 1 0.6% 8 5.9%
29R � D 19 11.8% 3 2.2%
Total Dep. '::� 161 100% ; 137 100%
Noie: ARTS data missin.� for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs
Page 7
Me�ropolitan Airports Commi�sion
Page 8
� . . ,, � . , � , �; �, ,;•
. � . � . � � �
Aircraft Type Count � Percentage
B 707 ' 0 0.0%
B727H 239 1.0%
B733/4/5 629 2.8%
B747 119 0.5%
B74F 17 0.1%
B757 2208 9.�%
B767 1 0.0%
sA� o o.o%
CL65 361 1.6%
DA 10 0 0.0%
DC 10 857 3.�%
DC87 65 0.3%
DC9H 2832 12.4%
EA30 6 0.0%
EA3l 53 U.2%
EA32 2185 9.6°!0
FK10 � 943 4.1%
L1011 ' 2 0.0%
MDl1 25 0.1%
MD80 1173 5.1%
BA10 . 16 0.1%
BA 11 0 0.0%
B727 3040 13.3%
B737 1439 6.3%
DCS 65 0.3%
DC9 6597 28.8%
. ` FK28 4 0.0°l0
Total 22876 100%
ute: ta mtsstng or , ys
Aviation Noise & Sateilite Programs
51.2 % Stage III
!�: :_' . � � ' �:�
; 1
Metropoliwn Airports Commission
. � ��,!, . , 1 ';' 1 i , �;.
Identifier Aircraft Description
B707 BOEING 707
B727 BOEING 727
B727H BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
B733/4/5 BOEING 737-3Q0/400/500
B737 BOEING 737 100/200 SERIES
B747 BOEING 747
B74F BOEING 747 FREIGHTER
B757 BOEING 757
B767 BOEING 767
BA10 �BRITISH AEROSPACE 125.
BAII BRITISH AEROSPACE Ill
B q46 B RITIS H AEROSPACE 146
CL65 CANADAIlZ 650 .
DA LO FALCON 10
DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10
DCg MCDONNELL DOUGLAS� DC8�
DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SERIES RE
DC9 MCDONNII.L DOUGLAS DC9
DC9H MCDONNELL.DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KTT •
EA30 AIltBUS INDUSTRIES A300
EA31 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310
EA32 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320
FK 10 FOKKER 100
�27 FOKKER F27 (PROP)
�2g FOKKER F28
L1011 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011
MD 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11
MD80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIFS
SW3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3
SW4 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SF34 SAAB 340
Aviation Noise & Satel(ite Programs
Page 9
:viclrupu�ii�n r+uEx,�u �.uni�u�������
.
� , '' ,: �' ` • ;� �, � � yy: _• , �
'.�i �. . 1 ' ,11 •1 y' �'�i;
Daytime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Day
Name Day �.Tse Day Qse
04 46 0.3% 73 0.4% 119
11L 4365 24.8% � 4358 25.0% �723
11 R 4 l 23 23.4% 4219 24.2% 8342
22 592 3.3% 26 0.1 % 618
29L 4493 25.5% 4485. 25.7% 8978
29R 4Q09 22.�% 4291 24.6% 8300
Total 17628 100% 17452 10�% 35080
Nighttime Hours
ltunway Departures Percentage Arrivals Per�entage
Name Night Use Night Use Total Night
04 17 5.6% 24 3.9°!0 41
11L 134 43.9% 76 12.4% 210
11 R 63 20.7% 40 6.5% 103
22 52 17.0% 2 0.3%a 54
29L 10 3.3% � 148 24.1% 158
29R 29 9.5% 324 52.8% 3S3
Total 305 100% 614 100% 919
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Page (0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs _
�
1
Mzcropol`tan Airports Commission
Corr�munity Overflight Analysis
Minneapotis - St. Paul Internationai Airport September 1996
Carrier Jet Operations - Atl Hours
Number Numbec TO� Percent Number of
Overflight Area Arrivals Departures Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Opecations
i3perations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 5407 5445 10852 47.4% 391.1
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 24 451 475 2.1% 17.1
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 7 13 20 0.1% 0.7
Highland Park
Over Eagan/ 6049 5480 11529 50.4% 415.5
Mendota Heights
Total 228i6 1Q0% 824.4
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am)
Number Ptumber Total Percent Number of
Overflight Area A��� �p�,�� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet C�perations
Operations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 60 20 $0 13.9% 2.9
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 3 23 26 4.5% 0.9
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 1 S 6 1.0% 0.2
Highland Park �
Over Eagan/ 353 113 4b6 80.6% 16.8
Mendota Heights . �
�'o� 578 100% 20.8
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page ( (
Metropoli[an Airports Commission
�. •
l[�ernote l�or�itoring �iie ]Locations
_
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Syster�
Page l2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
��
C.
r�
,�tCtrvEwui..�n ��tEx�n� �uu«���„����
. . . �, .� ,� , .
. • •_
.� . �. 1�;�.
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each R1VIT
�T City Approximate Street Location �vents Events Events Events
ID >65d8 �OdB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 4tst Street 1846 49 0 0
2 Minneapotis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1101 577 2 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2392 1042 11 0
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2168 637 9 0
5 Minneapotis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2504 164�8 2S6 0
6 � Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Stceet 2635 1762 330 2
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 261 l8 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 460 6 1 0
9 St. Pau! Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 2$ 9 i 0
10 St. Pau! Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 56 15 3 0
11 S� Paul Finn Stceet & Scheffer Avenue 65 8 0 0
t2 SG Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 43 12 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 71 � 2 0 0
14 Eagan F'ust Street & McKee Street 4874 120 1 0
t5 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Le�cington Avenue 533 34 1 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & vlas Lane 3579 1744 17 0
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 119 19 0 0
18 Richfietd 75th Street & 17th Avenue 145 18 1 0
19 Btoomington 16th�Avenue & 84th Street 66 2 1 0
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 59 6 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street l89 4 0 0
22 tnver Grove Heights Anne,Marie Trail 763 13 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1296 200 4 I
24 Eagan Chapet Lane & Wren Lane 2367 383 6 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 13
.�.,.,r..���u�� ...r.,,... ..,, ......... .. ..
� Carrier Jet �eparture Retated Noa�e Even� � �
_ September 1996
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
_ �
RMT Events Events Events Events
ID City Approximate Street Location �SdB >80ciB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapotis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 825 193 t 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1458 315 3 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1879 495 34 1
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Sireet 3222 624 48 7
S Minneapo(is 12th Avenue & 58th Street 5137 2149 729 90
6 . Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 7133 3830 1767 SS l
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 3159 1013 138 3
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 2196 602 65 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 53 13 2 0
10 St. Paul itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 173 32 6 0
t 1 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 373 17 1 0
12 St. Paul Alton Soreet & Rockwaod Avenue 175 29 3 0
!3 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1892 �706 20 0.-
t4 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 3593 1085 10$ 3'
IS Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Le�cington Avenue 2346 1032 87 1
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 3885 1513 329 7
17 Btoomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 577 7'7 19 1
18 Richfie(d 75th Street & 17th Avenue 1567 34p 148 14
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 546 227 85 l
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 644 58 10 1
21 Inver Grove Heights Bazbara Avenue & 67th Street 2121 441 1 0
22 [nver Grove Heights Anne Ntarie Trail '702 80 t 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3334 1380 453 50
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wcen Lane 2503 709 103 1 t
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Page-l-� Aviacion Noise & Satellite Programs
,' j
�
Metropolitan Aiiports Commission
., � �,. . � • • � • •,�'
.
RNI'T #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st 5t.
Minneapolis
Date Ttrt� ,�,� M� A/�
Y.eve!
09/ 10/96 7:44:18 DC9 95.1 D
09/15l9616:07:21 B747 88.5 D
09/22/9616:55:21 B727 88.1 D
09/14l'96 15:58:10 B747 87.9 D
09113/9611:23:00 DC9 87.7 D
09/28/'9612:36:15 DC9 87.7 D
04/29/9615:43:12 DC9 87.2 A
09/28/96 21:59:38 DC9 86.7 D
09/IZ/96 4:47:5 t B747 86.2 D
09/28/96 9:25:45 DC9 86.2 D
RI�IT #3: W. �Imwood S� �c Belmont Ave.
Minneapolis
A/C Max
Date Tttrn �� �.tael �
09/28/9611:58:30 B72'7 100.1 D
09/13/96 9:40:44 B727 97.6 D
09/1619619:27:17 B727 96.4 A
09/ 14/96 6:18: I S B 727 95.3 D
09/12/96 22:18:24 B747 96.1 D
09/ t 5/96 16:06:45 B 747 96:0 D
09/12/9610:39:08 B727 95.8 D
09/14/'9615:57:37 B747 95.8 D
09/29/94 8:20:20 DC9 95.8 D
09/2219612:04:15 8727 94.8 D
RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S�
Minneapolis
Date Time � Max �
Level
09/18/96 L8:51:25 DC9 92.6 A
09/22/96 20:08:07 B727 92.5 D
09/06/96 t5:53:41 B727 91.9 A
09/23l'96 9:30:09 B727 9�.8' D
09/22/9616:55:10 B727 90.1 D
09/16/9610:45:32 B727 89.9 A
09/12J96 20:41:57 B727 89.4 D
09/13/9612:17:03 B727 89.3 D
Q9/OZ/9612:34:41 DH8 88.6 A
09/12/96 22:19:01 B747 88.3 D
R1V[T #4: Oaklanci Ave. & 49th St�
IVlinneapolis
D�tt Tlme A/C NYa= �
'I'ype t.e�el
09/�08/9613:32:00 B727 102.3 D
09/24/'96 6:55:13 B727 l02.1 D
09/23N6 6:54:21 B737 102.0 D
09/08N6 7:21:54 DC9 101.5 D
09/08/9611:49:05 B747 100.8 D
09/I1l96 7:07:18 B737 100.3 D
09l22/96 t 5:08:49 DC9 100.3 D
09/14/9615:19:05 B727 99.9 D
09/23/96 t 5: ! 8:43 B 737 99.9 D
Q91'a'7/'96 I t:50:14 8727 99.7 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satetiite Programs
Page I S
V(etropolitan Airporu C:omm�s�iun
� Ten i.oudest Aircraft I�loise Events Identified
_ _ _ .
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. R.NIT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St� �
Minneapolis Minneapolis
Date Time ,�� M� A/D
Level
09/ 12/96 20:42:43 B 727 L 08.6 D
09/13/96 9:40:25 B727 105.5 D
09/28/96 8:31:58 B727 105.3 D
09/27/9613:40:39 B727 104.4 D
09/OS/96 20:52:52 B727 104.3 D
09/27/9611:57:57 8727 104.3 D
09/07/96 9:35:53 B727 104.2 D
09/15/96 20:59:47 B727 104.2 D
09/ 14/96' t 1:42:08 DC9 104.1 D
09/07/9611:45:25 B727 103.9 D
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S�.
Richfield
Date Time AJC Max �
Type I.cvel
09/08/96 9:54:37 B727 102.2 D
09/29/96 9:40:02 B727 100.7 D
09/22/96 8:19:59 B727 100.1 D
09/21/9613:58:33 DC9 t00.0 D
09/12/9613:29:13 B727 99.8 D
' 09/28/9616:50:01' B727 99.4 D
09/l2/96 8:01:10 B737 99.2 D
09/15/96 t4:49:25 DC9 989 D
09/ t 5/9b 13:37:55 B727 98.7 D
09/24/96 t7:56:53 8727 98.6 D
Page 16
A/C Max
Date 'ISme �e Level �
. 09/07l'9611:52:15 B727 110.7 D
09/28�'9611:55:23 B727 110.6 D
09l08/96 16:4'7:13 B727 1 t0.5 � D
09/O8/9613:34:02 B727 110.0 D
09/t0/9610:14:33 B72'7 110.0 � D
09/05/9617:42:35 B727 109.5 D
09/10/9611:32:49 B727 109.4 D
09/10/90 12:05:52 B727 109.4 D
09/21/96 20:09:36 B727 l09.4 D
09/23/9611:52:40 B727 109.3 D
RM'i' #S: Longfellow Ave. �c 43rd S�
MinneapoGs
Date Tyme� , � � � A/D
09/22/46 t5:521 t B'72'7 99.3 D
09/14/9618:52:57 B727 99.2 D
09/�08/9613:34:25 B727 �99.1 D
09/24P96 11:59: LO B727 99.0 D
09/12/9613:30:53 B727 98.8 D
09/21/9619:07:22 B'727 98.5 D
09/28/96 7:55:17 B72'7 98.1 D
09/t3/9613:34:47 B727 97.8 D
09/22/9618:15:31 B727 97.3 D
09/l0/9613:46:52 B727 97.1 D
Note:.ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
(
f ��
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Louciest Aireraft I�toise Eve�ts�Ideniified
RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
S� Paut
Date Time �C Max �
Type Levet
09/O l/96 12:48:45 8747 92.1 A
09/ 12/96 4:48:25 B 747 9 t.0 D
09/14/9621:18:13 B727 90.5 D
09/ 15/96 22:41:05 DC 10 89.7 D
09/28/96 12:41:34 MD 11 89.7 A
09/ 14/96 22:29:36 DC 10 89.3 D
09/29/9612:40:24 B747 89.0 A
09/OS/9619:37:34 DC9 86.4 D
09/09/9� t6:19:05 B72? 85.8 A
09/09/96 6:53:46 B727 84.6 A
RMT #11: Finn S� � Seheffer Ave.
S� Paut
Date 'Tia� ,�,� � �
09/27/'9613:43:30 B�27 92.4 D
09%23/96 i5:25:32 DC9 88.2 A
09/ 17/96 9:29:00 DC9 87.6 D
09/OS/9617:43:33 B727 87.5 A
09/03/9614:31:09 B727 85.5 A
09/24/96 8:57:19 SF34 85.3 D
09/t 1/96 8:20:47 6727 84.0 A
09/!0/96 9:15:31 DC9 83.5 D
09/26/9610:36:18 B727 83.5 A
09/28/96 21:44:05 B727 83.5 D
RNiT #10: [tasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
St. P'aul
A/C Max
Date Time �e� Level �
09/ t 2/96 4:47:51 B747 98.6 D
09/28/96 12:42:20 MD 1! 97.0 A
09/01/9612:49:29 - B747 94.9 A
09/29/9612:40:58 DC9 93.7 D
09/28/96 1928:19 DC 10 92.3 D
09/IS/9622:40:37 I�10 91.9 D
09/i71'961:50:28 B747 91.9 D
� 09/OS/9617:43:14 B727 90.9 A
09/14/96 21:17:46 B727 90.8 D
09/ 13/96 23:16:17 DC 10 90.0 D
RMT #12s Alton S� & ltockwood Ave.
S� Paul
A/C ARaz
Date 1ia� � I.eoel �
09/15/96 20:06:22 B727 92.1 D
09l22/9614:54:49 DC9 90.6 D
09/11/9615:28:31 B737 90.2 D
09/2419611:01:44 B737 89.7 A
09/09l'96 6:53:20 B727 89.5 A
09/06/96 20:52:11 DC9 88.6 D
09/27/9610:46:28 B727 88.5 A
09/24/9616:54:03 SF34 87.7 D
09/OS/9619:37:11 BE02 87.6 D
09/03/96 18:18:42 B E90 86.5 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 17
�l�[rc�poutan �irpoR; (..omn�i»��n
,
�'en Loudest t�ircra�t Noise Ever�ts Ideniified --
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ �
R.i�IT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St. <
Mendota Heights Eagan
Date Time ,�� M� AJD
Level
09/25/96 9:51:02 B727 9�.4 D
09/02/96 t 1:49:30 B727 94.9 D
09/25/9611:55:45 DC9 94.8 D
09/04/9616:47:26 flC9 94.3 D
09/0219611:26:34 B727 92.9 D
09/06/9617:06:33 B727 92.5 D
09/04/9611:59:57 B727 91.9 D
09/06/96 (4:31:40 B727 91.7 D
09/06/96�20:09:52 B727 9t.6 D
09/02/9614:43:14 B727 91.5 D
Date Time �C Ma1c �
Type Level
09/26/96 t6:26:51 B727 102.2 D
09/16/96 8:54:57 B727 10t.6 D
09/ ( 8/96 16:54:58 DC9 t 01.2 D
09/25/96 �i6:23:10 B727 100.0 D
09/04/9610:25:58 B72� 99.9 D
09/03l96I8:22:33 DC9 99.5 D
09/03/'96 9:27:21 DC9 99.2 D
09/06/96 15:20:56 B 747 99.2 D
Q9/03/96 9:41:41 B72'7 99.0 D
09/04/9616:57:48 B727 989 D
C' a
RMT #15: Cuilon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date Titt�e �,� Le d `�
09/02/9612:00:35 B727 100.9 D
09/OS/96 1(:40:07 B727 99.4 D
09/30/96 20:42:22 B�37 98.5 D
09/02/9616:57:08 B727 97.8 D
09/02/96 6:05:49 B727 97.5 D
09/26/9611:59:18 8727 97.0 D
09/04/96 21:55:3 t S W3 96.7 D
09/25/96 1 t:59:04 8727 96.4 D
09/l9/96 8:26:35 B727 96.3 D
09/25/96 9:27:57 B727 96.1 D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & �las Lane
Eagan
Date TYme ,�� M� A/p
Level
09/02/9617:35:13 B727 102.1 D
09/l6/96 L4:27:02 B727 lOL6 D
09/30/9613:45:35 DC9 �101.0 D
09/04/96 9:26:26 DC9 100.7 D
09/I8/96 (3:32:0? B727 (00.6 D
09/04l'96 9:45:09 DC9 100.3 D
09/16/9617;33:49 B�27 100.3 D
09/17/9616:11:48 8727 I00.0 D
09/25/96 13:26: t5 8�37 100.0 D.
09/06/9617:32:35 B727 99.9 D
�_
,
Nnte: ARTS datu missing for 2.25 days
Page l8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
' i
Ntecropolitan Airpurts Lommi��iun
• 1 1• • . :1 . . �. •�;
RMT #17: 84th S� & 4th Ave.
Btoomington
Date Time ,�� 1�Yax �
Level
09/21l'9617:28:40 B747 100.9 D
09/23/9610:37:40 B747 99.9 D
09/27/'9615:25:00 B747 99.8 D
09/07/96 15:26:31 B747 98.9 D
09/03/9611:07:55 B727 97.7 D
09/22P9616:13:36 B727 97.6 D
09/25/96 21:21:49 B747 97.4 D
09/28l'9615:4b:20 B747 97.4 D
09/ZI/96 20:52:51 B727 96.2 D
09/29l'9616:06:58 B727 96.1 D
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & �4th St
Bloomington
A/C riias
Date TY�e . -g�,� L.cve1 `�
09l22/96 7:Q9:59 B�27 100.3 D
09/15/96 8:57:20 B727 99.8 D
09r22196 8:55:50 B727 99.4 D
09/I1/96 23:21:16 B727 99.1 D
09/28/96 8:52:52 B727 99.0 D
09/26/'96 23:44:42 B727 97.9 D
09/07/96 7:25:04 B727 97.5 D
09/29/96 7:08:40 B72'7 97.5 D
09/22/96 7:49:47 8727 97.4 D
09I20l96 6:11:16 B727 46.8 D
RMT #18: 7Sth S� & 17th Ave.
Itichfield
A/C A�ax
Date Time �e Level � �
09/23/9610:37:22 B747 104.1 D
09/07/96 21:26:41 B727 102.8 D
09/27/96 i5:24:39 B747 102.7 D
09/08/96 21:19:48 B'727 102.1 D
09/28/96 21:57:43 DC9 102. I D
09/ t 5/'96 $:28:09 B727 101.8 D
09l25/96 21:21:31 B747 l01.7 D
09/14/96 22:10:54 B727 101.0 D
09/28/9615:46:03 B747 1�.7 D
09/07/9615:26:17 B747 l00.6 D
I2NiT #20: 7Sth S� �i 3rd Ave.
Richfield
nere 1in�e A/c rifaR �
'I�pe I.evel
09/07/96 21:26:59 B727 101.5 D
09l23/9615:22:51 B'72'7 98.5 D
09l28/96 21:58:02 DC9 95.6 D
09/22r96 8:4t:49 B727 93.9 D
09/23/9614:25:Ofi DC9 93.5 D
10/19/9412:49:45 DC9 92.5 D
09l22J96 22:39:08 DC9 91.9 D
09/15/9612:58:36 DC9 91.2 D
09l2 t/96 18:42:47 B727 90.9 D
09l26/96 23:1�6:42 DC9 90.7 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Aviation Noise & Sateltite Programs
Page 19
�tecropoluan AupoRs c:omm���wn
Tea� Loudesi Aircraft No�se Evenis Identified '
_ __ _ .
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St, RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Hei hts C�
Inver Grove Heights g
Date Time � M� �
Level
09/02/96 3:59:42 B727 94.7 D
09/09/9614:45:03 B727 89.9 D
09/25/9610:14:35 B727 89.5 D
09/18/'9612:08:27 B727 89.0 D
09/26/96 9:36:00 B727 88.3 D.
09/ t 8l'96 15:06:06 DC9 88.2 D
09/19/9614:08:45 B727 88.1 D
09/17/96 8:04:35 B�27 87.7 D
09/09l96 22:38:29 B747 87.6 D
09/26/9615:01:55 DC9 87.5 D
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
AJC Niaa
Date Ti�e � H.eael �
09/09/9611:00:30 B72'7 105.4 D
09/09/'96 13:00:30 � B727 105.2 D
09/09/9610:00:30 DC9 lO5.0 D
09/12/96 7:00:30 B72'7 L04.8 - D
Q9/08/96 9:47:58 DC9 L04.7 D
09/12/9610:00:30 B727 104.7 A
09/0�/9616:00:30 DC9 t04.3 D
09/ t 2/96 0:00:30 DC9 104.2 D
09/0�/96 t2:00:30 B727 104.1 D
09/14/9616:00:30 B727 103.7 D
Date Time `vC M� .A/D
T'ype . Level
09/02/9616:50:33 B727 97.8 D
09/02/9616:51:48 B727 89.3 D
09/2519f 12:35:18 B727 87.7 D
09/Ol/96 8:35:29 B727 86.8 D
09/ZS/96 7:38:56 DC9 86.7 D
09/25/96 7:54:59 DH8 86.6 D
09/27/96 8:24:53 DC9 86.5 A
09/14/9618:39:39 DC9 86.2 A
09/04/96 8:06:42 B727 86.0 D
09/0219613:11:29 B727 85.5 D
�
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
AJC t4iaz
Date 'Iqme �� Levei `�
09/11/96 7:47:25 B737 103.1 D
09/13l96 7:45:30 B727 102.7 D
09/OS/9614:00:.11 B727 102.6 D
09/17/96 9:59:48 B727 102.3 D
09/17/96 9:44:57 DC9 101.9 D
09/08/9613:55:21 DC9 101.8 D
09/24/'96 8:02:20 DC9 101.6 D
09/24N6 2:17:52 DC3 100.4 D
09/17/9610:53:12 B73'7 100.2 D
09/2 (/'96 8:52:48 B727 (00.2 D
�
Note: ARTS data missing for 2.25 days
Page 20 �� � � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
i ;
:�te[ropolitan Ai�pons Commiss�on
�.
Flig�ht Track �ase IVIap
Airport Noise and Ope�-ations IVioniioring System
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 21
0
0
♦ ,.
\ ' �� � ��
Y .� 1\�
�-. �,_ _,
. , �.�
�
�yt�` eza:'1�- "''� ��`� �4 � �.�l�y��
..��.��G,.1, + ,�,, r,� ,
`,: R . °,�s`ra�> J . �,,�,:.. t ��
\O . ��` �� �' 1ar r f � •, ._ \�� ►
'4..��. �`� '� .��ii � '� �,`�.'�,�.`
� � '�1� ' 6 \�':-� �
� ` � � ����; 'I
`` 1 r'�. ia�Ni � . �� `�\\��',���
� � � ' iilv i►� ' ' �.���:���"'=
> . r!..\�� i.�T.�—'_•_ �
. , N �
V yr � � r ^' t t .
s F� . r ��/�/� � � � �Se ."� � a �:
�� ♦µ��/.�' rq f + � � 9 . . r -��i�ii
�
F�'. t. .^�• {.."rll��,,,1`Y1.��'������.^��
�: �. "` Y ti.�� �•�
., �II� .
. � �. i�:
� ��`�,f�%7
.sa'� ` ` � . �N. %% �
•� � �qi'y�'�
�+o.� .'C. ,'.'w�' ✓� n,•.
�!.�..."�C � - '
,�,....__ _
��!n-=�w �� : �I
��.,.��" ����"a4. • � -
� .@>'�-:.n.- f \� �
���C�.►���.;:, \��
��r�� � :
If1'�i'�—r�l�.�\\ \ �\ ��._�:.. .
�'�r��1, " �' „r ��
,`�\�1s-
'�''�`?�\�� ;—''ro, , ;' _
.� �`t � \��� C•�t �
`�:,�``,;:`r;�'�
F ` ."`�C\ ��
� ` \��`�, F
'�-:, a ,
�.� -� ,� : ,
\ � i.. • ;
��
� �.. - ,�'\� . \ :
� `'� �
� ` �►� ,��w � '.� �
� �:` �► ..'\�.
,,;. �.- :_ - , � •'=`�1.��►i .
. .�v �'���•,•�..�i ,
,, _.
''� � ��: _�
'//� :ii";��i►.�,. .n .~�•
� ` � , '%��.`..._�,� :..
,ti `������1 �'' '� `-
. `,��� C` A' i, �� v
. \ �' �, � �' ♦ ���
�� —� �'1'� �� ♦ � �..
'`\ � � \;
�\ � �• �
. .�... ��`i!`;\�;\;
' , 1 ` t• ,� .
.'� � � �� :� '`�� �,,`
;` � 1 � , \ `\
..... .. "_•. . . � _
�
: .� - .,
�
,� � ::. `
, .
\ . Y` �
`.. ��. .. '.... ^ ....
��. �I�e. h . . .. .
.. . :•i1�id . . �;�'�'-::�-.
��� � \\�\�f�►��� •
� �\� ��"�l���,�;�•
�':` �►t'`\C
,, ������
• '� _ ,...;:�
_ , .. , `
�,...ti . . - " _
_- .-. , ..._
�;es .. -__
.,r:., ��
. �� _
i � :
r
� �J . ��✓ . {r ` � � �.�r
♦♦ ��) .��
r ,r '►� .
/Y .r .a�...�:�- ��.b . �„ � 1r
• , " s • „ ��. ..- . '..� • . . .
..�..Fs . w+..^'..•�♦ -•...,- .. .
._'�� .�'�•'%6�7I/'�7i :r ' '
\ �
.. :��1 � ����� •
_ � •�` �� Mf� ..
.._ �� I a.
ri " .
_�.:...._'��►\a�;���\� '
-�rii'� ; ..
-.i!�.s1►�i�la`��
� �'���\�" •
�r��=VT,^-. ��*\1 ��
s�,�_. -�•y+ .• �.�
G/r��.r�l",`l�S.' � �e:.
4 �aq\�'�" ' .
� �� � .
� ��:a,.: , ;�.^. �.'rh
�� ��� � ;
��. . • \� ��\` �;�
.;'. M.
\� � .
��.�� l:: � - '
I� \
•,��`.�' � • ,�� `�.
��.� .
- .�„L`��,..,� ���
" %Iii`�""'il► A ; � :
% ` � ��� �`'����� \ �; �
. _ ' �1`�.�..��!:. ,
� •, �, �r�,,ic-' __
,•
, .. � �
. `�
� ; z .�i1'� •,
' a ',.e,,�``�.,�, -::
' � ��`+���\ 1... !.
-► :'''' ��„
��:
... ... � � �,`.\
• ` �.
. �\
. ;�
. , ' .. . . .. •\'
'�:. .
�tetropoli�an Airpor�s C.ommission
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Ever�ts - Aircrait Ldn dB(A) �
September 01 to September 30, 1996
Noise Monitor Locations
Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12
1 57.6 55.1 64.5 63.4 69.3 69.7 40.4 54.3 51.7. 57.4 44.9 50.6
2 58.7 54.8 66.2 64.1 69.6 70.8 47.7 57.6 56.0 48.9 49.9
3 58.3 53.3 65.5 64.4 69.3 � 1.4 * 53.6 42.9 56.6 48.6 51.3
4 59.1 61.0 67.7 64.6 7t.0 72.� 66.8 59.4 52.1 57.� 48.0 50.5
S 60.9 58.2 67.2 66.2 71.2 73.4 52.7 . 58.3 47.9 58.9 48.8 *
6 60. t 59.3 * * 70.0 71.2 54.0 53.3 46.8 56.1 46.8 53.7
7 54.7 52.8 * 65.2 75.1 81.0 66.2 63.6 48.6 53.9 49.3 52.2
$ 55.3 52.7 * 67.9 � 75.5 S l. l 67.8 62.9 48.5 40.8 41.0 46.6
9 60.4 58.4 * 64.3 67.1 72.8 55.1 52.2 56.6 53.1 54.5 59.1
10 59.0 59.8 64.5 63.7 �5.9 82.0 68.2 65.6 S 19 54.4 51.5 54.2
11 59.6 55.8 64.0 65.0 75.2 81.3� 70.0 66.5 43.6 49.4 46.5 53.4
12 60.4 63.0 67.2 65.9 78.7 82.2 72.4 67.0 60.8 66.1 51.4 S t.9
13 57.8 SSJ 64.3 65.9 77.8 81.8 69.8 69.1 57.1 59.5 51.7 52.2
14 . 58.1 60.3 66.6 62.6 75.8 79. ! 66.1 63.8 59.0 60.0 50.1 52.0
l5 57.7 56.1 63.4 64.5 77.5 80.2 70.3 64.6 59.5 60.4 52.5 58.3
16 60.0 59.1 65.1 61.8 70.1 71.3 54.4 52.3 44.8 52.8 48.9 50.7
17 61:4 59.7 66.3 62.9 72.5 71.8 57.6 60.6 54.3 61.1 54.8 55.4
18 60.5 61.6 66.3 62.2 * 73.3 56.9 56.0 48.9 54.1 45.1 53.0
19 57.5 53.6 63.8 fi4.4 71.9 .71.0 53.0 54.4 47.2 5�.1 54.2 54.8
20 57.2 57.9 62.3 65.8 70.9 74.5 67.0 65.9 55.1 59.3 58.2 56.2
21 58.5 53.6 64.0 64.5 71.8 �6.8 64.0 62.4 45.1 52.9 47.5 54.6
� 22 59.2 6t.0 60.9 63.8 75.4 79.7 66.7 64.8 47.4 46.9 49.6 56.0
23 58.1 58.6 60.3 71.4 75.9 80.5 69.8 66.1 57. ( 53.4 52.3 54.5
24 56.9 55.2 60.3 71.2 77.2 50.5 69.5 66.9 53.9 47.4 52.1 51.3
25 60.3 62.4 64.8 63.3 72.4 73.6 55.8 56.6 51 A 60.6 48.2 59.5
26 64A 65. l 69.0 68.4 76.4 81.2 68.3 67. t 44.6 55.3 49.6 54.1
27 � 52. I 50.9 57.3 69.2 77.2 78.3 65.2 64.6 48.5 51.0 53.4 56.7
2$ 58.9 55.5 62.1 63.3 75.8 78.8 68.1 65A 51.2 57.3 49.5 53.1
29 57.8 55.1 583 56.3 72.6 77.9 64.9 61.6 48.8 55.0 43.5 54.5
30 58J 56.2 63.9 62.8 69. t 73.6 56.8 60.4 46.4 58.� 52.6 54.6
Mo. Ldn�` 62.3 65.4 "67{,2 ' 66�.8t� 76.8 80.4.`3� .' 68.7 67.2 5$.5 59.9 55.4 57.8
�::: : f,
. ` ^ �' . ' ' f'` � . "`� �tbfe ^ ARTS cluta mfs�ing for 2. 25 days
Page 26 Aviation�:Ndfse`& Satellite Programs
( i
�
��
�te[ropolitan ��rports C.:ommi�sion
Analysis o� Aircrait I�1o�se Eve��.s - Aircraft Ldn d�(A)
September 01 to Septerrdber 30, 1996
Noise Monitor Locations
Date #13 #14 #15 #16 #1.7 #1� #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24
1 63.3 66.6 66.3 69.6 54.7 65.3 64.9 45.6 62.5 59.9 82.8 65.9
2 66.4 68.5 7 t.2 * 453 58.4 51.9 48.2 64.4 61.7 79. l 64.4
3 63.4 69.7 65.9 71.9 57.7 5�.� 50.6 41.6 59.0 6a.i 79.3 61.2
4 65.5 69.9 67.7 73.2 48.1 49.3 47.2 50.5 64.2 * 80.9 61.6
5 6�.8 68.9 70.6 71.6 46.7 53.8 49.0 42.7 62.1 57.7 81.6 65.8
6 64.7 67.4 67.5 71.3 44.1 51.1 4$.4 55.0 62.6 65.1 82.6 65.0
7 59.4 62.4 58.5 67.1 62.1 71.8 68.5 62.4 46.2 57.1 80.7 69.9
g 48.4 64.8 55.4 68.0 58.4 67.7 64.5 52.4 43.0 50.8 89.3 79.1
9 65.2 70.3 67.5 73.2 54.1 64.6 63.0 48.6 64.3 56.8 80.5 67.7
10 61.5 64.5 63.0 68.0 48.7 49.9 45.9 52.7 53.3 56.0 79.9 67.4
11 50.0 63.3 58.4 68.0 54.1 65.3 69.4 53.8 * 55.9 80.9. 79.7
12 54.5 65.5 59.2 68.6 58.2 69.7 68.5 60.3 55.0 59.4 84.4 75.6
13 58.7 63.5 61.3 67.7 54.7 60.5 55.5 50.2 58.1 53.1 85.6 70.7
14 53.1 63.6 58.5 67.6 * 69.2 66.6 58.2 54.4� *� 85.4 69.3
15 � 57.7 66.0 61.4 68.2 * .70.5 68.0 55.8 54.1 65.3 73.8 63.2
16 63.9 69.8 66.1 73.8 * 55.8 49.7 49.3 65.1 56.8 79.2 75.5
17 64.6 70.0 65.8 73.5 51.1 54.1 55.8 50.0 65.0 56.6 78.2 78.0
1 g 65.1 70.4 66.9 72.5 59.5 64.5 50.2 51.1 65.3 64.5 78.3 67.9
(g 64.6 66.7 67.3 69.7 50.8 . 56.0 51.0 41.5 61.9 53.3 76.5 70.8
20 60.1 63.1 65.0 67.7 54.2 68.1 63.2 57.3 62.3 58.6 72.1 74.3
2l 63.3 66.2 663 70.5 64.0 70.3 63.2 58.1 � 59.8 55.7 73.5 78.0
22 54.1 66.3 48.1 6$.7 64.2 64.2 69.9 64.2 * 62.3 78.2 77.2
23 49.0 63.3 57.2 68.6 61.0 68.3 67.3 61.0 50.4 52.5 81.2 76.1
24 52.3 63.0 56.8 67.9 61.3 66.5 59.0 54.7 50.3 55.3 74.9 76.4
25 68.1 69.7 69.4 72.2 60.4 62.2 51.7 50.4 66.6 59.1 73.0 71.8
26 , 61.4 68.4 66.6 72.0 64.9 * 70.8 64.3 56.9 63.9 67.9 69.4
27 57.7 65.7 58.8 69.2 59.0 65.1 64.8 56.1 55.3 60.0 74.3 66.3
28 50.9 64.7 57.5 69.4 63.8 69.4 69.3 61.3 46.3 59.2 67.6 72.4
29 58.6 68.3 58.6 70.2 62.5 69.8 69.1 54.2 60.9 53.4 78.2 80. !
30 65.6 65.6 68.3 69.6 52.5 54.5 50.3 49.9 62.3 52.7 69.3 70.4
Au.; .
`1 �yf��n ��,�4.4_ fi;9,5 67 9 .:ry�2,�'� '..�6,1, �;;. . .9 67A =$• `,1, 63.2 62.3 8l3 67.9
�F �- � +a ,atr-7 � � � . .:�5� .tci �,Fx _-�t � s i4iL f.. • � ,-,.. � , -� , � � . � ^T '�, ='••
� �.: :�".�'`.. ��� �+ vte.��TS�""""i�i�sing far 2. ��'rVs� ��'w�� ;�' �
, _ , ,. Avia�ion Noi��Satellite Programs � � Pa$�'�
. . 4i.,�. ... :5.n
C
C
.___._
-------. ,
•. _ _ , � ,
_:
. ' /
-
//���I� II . -- . � , „�.��
- ��
� ►�
, ,
; . :.,.
���-� , , � , � �
�,
:�.: ,. -
.
_.. ;,
%�
_ ... ---Y-
� . _ _�r
/
, �y� ���«����� �
y�_i���r�.r.�.r
7.��rK��rrt���n� �ir
.. L,�1�7•7�fr'tt�frfrr.r t
.�.Jt------_� f,/i� �7
�
. . . '-.,,_„� .�
. . . , . . . . . . "�.--�.:.:.
. . . . � . .. � ,��.
r (
` _
i
. . . . . . . . .. . . ... .�: ��:� ...��. �.��..�. .. . ��..� .. �:...� _�:�' .
_ a
— ,�� �N Minneapolis / St. �'aul International Airport
_ -�- _ _
MONTHLY MEL�'TING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council
.
c�,�,,,�:
Robert P. Jo6n�+oo
Vice Qtaim�mt:
scoa Buaiu
r«n,��a� nd�,.�.:
.rano e�.
ActinR Setrctarv:
Ne1L�a Scovtonskl
Airborne £sp�ru:
ar�ao a.cd
Arr Tiansport Assceiarian:
Pnul McGrsw
AlPA:
C6nrles W. Curry Jr.
Cin• njBloamingron:
Peana� [.ee
vem wuoo:
Cin� ojBumsviUe:
Ed Poreer -
c;ty of�R�,:
Ibm Epe
City ojlmer Grove Heiqhta:
DWe FLmmom
Citv ajMenlaa Heightr.
JW Smlt6
Ciry ojMinntapd'u:
lamss & Serrlr
Jo6a Rkdter
��
JudltY Dadge
Citv ojRichfre/d:
oa. erlebe
c;ry of Sf. laui: Av*: �
Nneen Adrewe .
Crry ojSr. Pod:
G scoa aa�l.
rmo�,� x. x.�
Carol Aor McGatrc
Delw Air [ines lne.:
�e ��u
Pederd Exp,r.u:
Dac DeBotd
Federal Avrntian Adminisrraaan:
eroce wago.er
Knoakl Glarb
MAC Sta$.•
Dlek ICeI�
MBM:
Robert P. Jo6moa
Mesaba Narthwert Air(ink:
DaaklS6eeYa.
Metro{rditan Airportr Caeunisrian:
Camml�bser Altw Gesper
MNAirNariom/ Guard: .
ntqlor tto, J. sbeuc.
Norfhwt.ttAirJines;
Marf� Sa�em
Jenalfer Sqrc
Sr. Pmd Chmnber ajCo�nnwrce:
�.�r e.�,
s,� ca,u,v�;.u,�r
u.k Karya
Unittd Airlinex /na:
819 Y�atl�
u�rr�a rt��i s�,���:
suve wallcer
U.S AirFareRexrvr. �
Captat� Dtrld J. Gcrlccs
Metmpolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and nadonat security; serve pubtic interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, intemational, national, state,
and l�al, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handiing of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and intemational
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan azea in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effecdve use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigadon and transportation, and to tl�at end provide for noise abatement,
control of airpoct area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports.
Metropolitan Aircrati Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
C
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the generat welfaze of the communiaes
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the aileviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airpoct; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of ��
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective �
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same; and through disseminadon of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
inidated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropotitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory�authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The AirpoR 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-94/I. '
Complaints to the hatline do not result in changes '.
in Airporr activity, but provides a pubtic sounding ',
board and airport information oudet. The hodine '
is staffed 24-hours Morsday - Friday '
This report is prepared and princed in house by
Traci Erickson, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments �nay be directed to:
MAC - Aviation Noise & Satellite Program
Minneapolis / St. Paut [ntemational Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, IvIlV 55450
TeL• (612j 725-6331: Fax: (6l2) �25-6310
ANSP Home Paee: htto:J/www.macavsat.ore I
� Metropo:litan Aicports Commission "'� Aviation�Noise & Satellite Programs �'
��� 1 �
� (�perations and Complaint Summary 1
Operations Summary - All Aircraft .......................................:................:............................1
MSP October Fleet Mix Percentage ....................................................................................1
Airport October Complaint Summary .................................................................................1
October Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ...................................................1
Minneapolrs - Ste �"aul International Airport C`ompltaint Sum�eacry 2
ComplaintSummary by Ciry ...............................................................................................2
, � ��, , , � . i ,
TowerLog Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3
Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ............:...................................................................3
Runway Use Report October 1996 ......................:...............................................................4
Carrier Jet Operations 5
Runway Use Report October 1996 ......................................................................................5
, • • / i � i � i;
.
Runway Use Report October 1996 .....................:................................................................6
� , � . , .� � , � �
Runway Use Report October 1996 ......................................................................................7
i � � �i� i` � i i� :
Aircraft Identi aer and Description Table 9
• � , _ �� , �, �,� . Ii� � i l
DaytimeHours ..................................................................................................:................10
Community Overflaght Analysis 11
' 1 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours ..................................................................................... l l
� .
���, Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (1 lpm - 6 am) .............................................................11
� o: . . � , . .
�p . : ,� -� } ,� 4 �. ,.
� 3, s � �J. `.f.. � . � F✓�T y ✓b :. ... .. u^ i.- �L I.. �T ' t~ Il 3 �Y � � � �� V a - � ' . � .
. . '."�':� . .. i . ..:��
��1�� Aviation*Noise &,�aatellite Programs
s
. ,
�Zemote Monitoring 5'ite �ocations 12
Carrier Jet Arrrval dZelated Noise Events 13
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................
t ' '� � �i�' ' '' i 'i I � ' '
��
............13
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14
'' I �;, . ,r � , , i, ,i
` � � � ,• • i � , , i , , i i
, � �', . � � , , i �, �i
� � l i � � t � � , � � � � � ; '
•
� , � r, . i � , , i , ,;i �
�' , ' � �;, . � � , , � , ,;�` �
, � ;� . ��
.
' i� � � t i �i� i / � � , . , �
Carrier Jet Operations - October 1996 ...............................................................................22
Airport 1Voise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23
Carrier Jet Operations - October 1996 ...............................................................................23
Airport 1'Voise and Operations Mon�toring System Flight Tracks 24
Carrier Jet Operations - October 1996 .............................................................................. 24
Airport Noise and' Operataons Monitoring System Flight Tracks 25
. Carrier Jet Operations - October 1996 .............................................................................. 25
Airport Noase and Operatz'ons Monitoring� System Flig�ht Tracks 26
Carrier Jet Operations - October 1996 .................................................
Analysis ofA a � � ^ • •
j,v�..�._ :• . �
Anal sis. o -��b�
.v _ .f��� �- �
. . �..�"..;e,SM1�m!:..ri1::W?t5".
Noise Events - All'Cl'Qfl' Ldn !�B(A,
Noise�Eve�its�- Aircraft Ldn d8(A)
"SV:T1T£I'c'�.'�'9:�?:��-.!..�<;T� >.'W"'.:..,^^ - :.iG:iT._aYJia�:
�� : �• .:r , ••c•('• �.. � . _
Aviatibn N'o�se. & Satellite Programs
......................... 26
�
�.
�� �
� �i
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
C)peraiions and Cornpla�ini Surr�nnary
October 1996
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Note: ARTS data missing for l. 97 days
Runway Arrival % Use Departure % �Tse
Oq. 58 0.3% 40 0.2%
22 99 0.5%a 458 2.5%
11 6977 36.8% 6992 37.7%
29 11854 62.4% 11027 59.6%
MSP October Fleet Mix Percentage
Scheduled Scheduteci ANOIVIS AlVONiS
Stage 1995 1996 Count 1995 Count 1996
Stage 2 51.7% 46.8% 49.1% 48.2%
Stage 3 48.3% 53.2% 50.9% 51.8%
Airport October Complaint Summary
Airport 1995 1996
MSP 1264 1349
Airlake 0 0
Anoka 0 0
Crystal 0 0
- Flying Cloud 2 3
Lake Elmo 0 0
St. Paul 2 0
Misc. 2 1
Tl7TAHr 1270 . 1353
Octobec Operations Summary - Airport Liirectocs Office
...�`.'r. ._ . ,
,
.,-� zF:�.�.��..�.;
_ '��".-.�.���. i
�:a�:c'�"=.^M�, .. "x:,� .. ..:nyr. ..r,y.
- . .,� �,
1995 1996
Air Carrier 80 t 808
Commuter 30� 337
G�A. 139 153
Military 10 8
Air Freight 49 39
C � .:.e�;,y . 12 , 10
� _�`�` ����313 .�• �u.:.�.=i�3�5�
'� : r �
�. V,Jr . ;.'.a_ .. �.. Vi::C. �.:,::3_dc..': '
�"""Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
..._i-')Yt:uni,�1'.�5.�
age 1
�; a .
t�:Y;:: � ,�.
Metropolitan Airports Commission �
Minneapotis - St. P'aul International ��rport Comp�air�t Suraimae-y
Page 2
�, ��• '',
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrival Departure Total Percentage
Apple Valley 0� 3 3 0.2%
Bloomington 6 19 25 1.9%
Burnsville 0 8 8 0.6%
Eagan 30 33 63 4.9%
Eden Prairie 4 7 11 0.9%
Edina 3 14 17 1.3%
Hopkins 0 1 1 0.1 %
• Inver grove heights 20 443 463 35.6%
Maple Grove 2 0 2 0.1%
Mendota Heights 13 91 104 $.0%
Minneapolis 1S6 337 493 37.8%
Minnetonka 0 2 2 0. t%
New Brighton 0 1 1 0.1%
Oakdale 0 1 1 0.1 %
Plymouth 1 0 1 � 0.1%
Richfield 7 45 52 4.0%
South St.Paul 0 7 7 0.5%
St.Louis Park 13 14 27 2.1%
St.Paul 9 7 16 1.2%
Sunfish Lake � 0 4 4 0.3%
West St.Paul 0 1 1 0.1%
Total 264 1036 1302 100%
Zime of Day Nature of Complaint
�'
C
47 °Io
Available Tir�ne %r Runway LTse
Tower I,og IZeports - October 1996
All Hours
0%
w � �
1%
31%
0% �
17%
�«
O�IO
Nighttime Hours
0%
0%
�
ibtetropolitan Airpons C;ommi���on
GS �IO
48%
83%
�4%
(� � ) � �
� 6%
Rcr .'rm�tra - ,-� ..g� ..xre-^Y^. ..r.�;�. � �.. .. . . _,.
� `���i�.iu3r .d9� �" �r :iTM$��k�' � _ ';�.i �_i:�;
�"^iy[ i�_..r�sC.. . . ''��.,.�.-SCL'RR�= : 77T�'i .� c.'�C"'�iGJ"'�� _. :�'v-�LE�' :�'x: �.�...k,. . : Llr; .'xF:'J„
.. '.�T .�" � �,'. ,?C�::'' � r f, . � _ i'�''" � � � . ,� . .
,, ,,.;�, ,�:, .:,;,,..; Aviation.�Qise & Satellite Programs
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
All Operations
Runway Use Report October 996
0.2%
o��be�
Itun�ay �p�� Count P'ea�e�ntage 1�o nt ��$
. Percentage
04 A 58 0.3% 220 1.2%
11L . A 3488 18.4% 33$5 17.6%
11 R A 3489 18.4% 3402 � 17.7%
22 A 99 0.5% 156 0.8%
29L A 6155 32�.4% 6208 32.3%
29I2 . A 5699 30.0% 5820 30.4% �
Total Arr. 18988 100% 19191 100%
04' � D 40 0.2% � 63 . 0.3%
11L D 3544 19.1% 3841 20.2%
11 R D 344$ 18.6% 3477 18.3%
22 D 458 2.5% 590 3.1%
29L D 58 L4 31.4% 5765 30.4%
29R D 5213 28.2% 5248 27.7%
.:. ,,,: . . .
�i.� . . 185i'=�-� 100°�'ve~' 18984�..� 100%
' � '. Note: AR��data missinA for 1.97 davs .
Page 4 �' Aviatioq Noise & Satetlite Programs
Carrier Jet Opera�ions
Runway IJse Report October 996
0.1 %
�
58.0%
37.9
0.1 °I
2.2%
0.4%
���
,� „
Ntetropolitan Airports Commission
61.6%
39.7%
Uctober
Runway �P �re Count Percentage �� C� �t 1995
Percentage
04. A 16 0.1% lOb 0.9%
11 L A 2336 19.6% 2136 17.9%
11 R A 2176 18.3% 1996 16.8%
22 A 45 0.4% 85 0.7%
29L A 3660 30.7% � 3815 32.0%
29R � A 3680 30.9% 3780 31.7%
Total Arr. 11913 100% 11918 100%
04 D 7 0.1% 8 0.1%
11 L D 2228 19.3% 2354 19.7%
11R D-- 2346 20.4% 2327 19.5%
22 D 254 2.2% 304 2.5%
29L D 3594 31.2% 3855 32.3%
29R D 3081 26.8°Io 3099 25.9%
De��°;;, � 11510'=� 100°% ' 1194'7 : 100°Io
�,o .-`...t' i:; �icsr�Ntite�'�RTS data'mis�ing for 1.97 days .
.. . � �� ��:�`;��A�dEI�n�Noise & Satetlite Programs
Page S
Metropoli[an Airports Commission
,.�� ,.....
�_
1olighttirrie - All C)perations
12unway Use 12eport October 996
2.7%
October .
Runway `���� Count Percentage �tober ��5
Departure � 1995 Count percentage
04 A 16 2.2% 64 9.4%
11L A 102 14.3% 28 4.1%
11 R A 66 9.3% 46 6.8%
22 A 13 1.8% ll 1.6%
29L A 339 47.6 286 42:2%
29R . A 17� 24.8% 243 35.9%
Total A�'. � 713 100% 678 100% .
04 D 11 2.7% 23 7.4%
11 L D 96 23.8% 97 31.2%
11 R� D 127 31.5% 65 20.9%
22 D 26 6.5% 36 11.6%
29L D 88 21.9% 63 20.2%
29R D 55 13.6% 27 8.7%
To` " p. } 403 100% � i 311���;ti�� �� 100% .
'�7t, ��:�4��' �i �1Vot�;;t1R:TS data missinQ for l. 97 davs
Page 6 Av,iation Noise �&;Satet(ite Programs
Metropolit�in Ai�ports CornmissioR
I�ightti�ne Carr�er Jet Operations
lZunway Use 1Zeport October 996
0.5 %
October
Itunway A�v� Count Perr�eentage O�Ober 1995
Departure 1995 Count p��entage
04 A 2 0.4% . 44 9.7%
11L A 59 12.4% 7 1.5%
11 R A 39 8.2% 26 5.7%
22 A 8 1.7% 9 2.0%
29L A 248 52.2% 202 4.4.4%
29R . A 119 25.1% 167 36.7%
Total Arr. � 475 100% 455 100%
04 D 1 0.5% 3 1.8%
t 1 L, D 45 20.8% 61 37.4%
11 R D 76 35.2% 30 l 8.4%
22 D 18 8.3% 22 13.5%
29I. D 49 22.7% 34 20.9%
29R D 27 12.5% 13 8.0%
, , s21,:�`�� :� y { �OQ °�0 163 100%
Total Dep. . 1 �„
ri �_
:�:;:ir::::.,.. ..`..:aT'-�i.' .2_�'�.�— 6".l'3�^w�-Twt�; :i%'
�, "'���o�: ART�'�af"a`intsstng for . days
�r ,;:,,.: Aviation NQise & Satetlite Programs
Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Page 8
. ., . , �. . 1 1 1.
�'; i 7 ' � f 1
Aircraft Type Count Percentage
B707 0 0.0%
B727H 240 1.0°Io
B733/4/5 610 2.6%
B747 74 0.3%
B74F 24 0.1%
B757 2215 9.5%
B767 1 0.0%
BA46 2 0.0%
CL65 413 1.8%
DA 10 0 0.0%
DC 10 882 3.8%
DC87 118 0.5%
DC9H 3052 13.0%
EA30 5 0.0%
EA3 i 64 0.3%
EA32 2177 9.3%
FK10 932 4.0%
L1011 0 0.0%.
MD 11 42 0.2%
MD80 1272 5.4%
� BA10 12 0.1%
BA 11 2 0.0%
B727 2843 12.1%
B737 1450� 6.2%
DC8 87 � 0.4%
DC9 6904 29.4%
FK28 2 0.0%
Total _ 23423 100%
ote: ta mtssing or : ys
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
48.2% .StQg6 II
Nletropolitan Airpon� Lommis,ion
.�ircraii Idea�ti�er and Description'Tabte
Identifier
B707
8727
B727H
B733/4/5
B737
B747
B74F
. B757
�—
B767
BA10
BAII
BA46
CL6S
DA 10
DC 10
DC8
DC87
DC9
DC9H
EA30
EA31
EA32
FK 10
FK27
FK28
L1011
MDl 1
MD80
SW3
SW4
SF34
Aircraft Description
BOEING 707
BOEING 727
BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
BOEING 737-300/400/500
BOEING 737 100/200 SERIES
BOEING 747
BOEING 747 FREIGHTER
BOEING 757
BOEING 767
BRITISH AEROSPACE 125
BRITISH AEROSPACE 111
BRITTSH AEROSPACE 146
. CANADAIR 650
FALCON 10
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 •
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8
MCDOI�iNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SERIES RE
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT
AIltBUS INUUSTRIES A300
AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310
AIltBUS INDUSTRIES A320
FOKKER 100
FOKKER F27 (PROP)
� � FOKKER F28
LOCKNEED TRFSTAR L l0 t 1
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES
SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3
SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SAAB 340
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 9
�tecropolitan Airports Commission
Run�vay LJse - I)ay/I��ght I'eriods � All Operations
Minneapo(is - St. P°aul International Airport October 1996
Daytime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Day
Name Day Use Day Use
04 29 0.2% 42 0.2% 71
11 L 3448 19.0% 3386 18.5% 6834
11R 3321. 18.3% 3423 18.7% 6744
22 432 2.4% 86 0.5% 518
29L 5726 31.6% 5816 31.9% 11542
29R 5158 28.5% 5522 30.2% 10680
Total 18114 100% 18275 100% 36389
Nighttime Fiours
Runway D�partuces Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Night
Name Night Use Night Use
04 11 2.7% 16 2.7% 27
11L 96 23.8% 102 23.8% 198
11R 127 31.5% 66 31.5% 193
22 26 6.5% 13 6.5% 39
29I. 88 21.9% 339 21.9% 427
29R 55 13.6% 177 13.6% 232
Total 403 100% 713 100% 1116
Note: ARTS data missing for 1.97 days
,
�
Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satel(ite Programs
tilztropolitan Airpott� C:omm���ion
Comrnunity Overflight Anatysis
Minneapotis - St. Paul International Airport October 1996
Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
Number Number Total Percent Nurnber of
Overflight Area Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
Arrivals Departures Operations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapo�is/ 4512 6675 11187 47.7% 385.4
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 16 254 270 1.2% 9.3
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 45 7 52 0.2% 1.8
Highland Park .
Over Eagan/ 7340 4574 l 1914 50.9% 410.4
Mendota Heights
Total 23423 100% 806.9
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpe�e� - 6 am)
- Number Number Total Percent Number of
� Overflight Area A��,� �p�,�� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
- Operations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 98 76 174 25.2°l0 6.0
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 2 18 20 2.9% 0.7
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 8 1 9 1.3°Io 0.3
Highland Park
' Over Eagan/ 367 121 488 70.6% 16.8
Mendota Heights
Total ' • 691 100% 23.8
Note: ARTS data missing for 1.9� days
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page t 1
�.
Ntetropolitan Airports Commission
Remoie 1Vlonitoring Site Locaiions
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
Page 12 ' Avia[ion Noise & Satellite Programs
r'
\
� '.
iNetropolitan Airpor[s Commission
.
. : . . . � • .. . �' � . .
�' � � ' '' � r
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
�T City Approximate Street Location Events Events Events Events
ID >GSdB >80dB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapo(is ' Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 1393 82 1 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1795 865 2 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2022 887 31 0
4 Minfieapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1531 513 . 3 0
5 Minneapotis 12th Avenue & S8th Street 2343 963 249 t0
6. Minneapotis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2554 1177 368 26
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 331 L7 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 541 24 1 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 54 28 4 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 70 39 13 0
11 SG Pau( Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 48 19 0 0
12 St. Paul Atton Street & Rockwood Avenue 51 29 1 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 371 2 0 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4805 256 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 842 37 2 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 3486 1126 37 1
17 Btoomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 127 10 2 1'
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue . 183 9 1 0
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Sa�eet 82 2 1 0
20 � RichHeld 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 84 8 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 273 10 1 0
22 � Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1016 24 0 0
. 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2926 112 0 0
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 2427 262 58 2
Note: ARTS data missing for 1.97 days
Aviation Noise & Sateltite Programs Page l3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� . . �.��, , r. � .� � . .
• t�• ''r
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RNIT �,
RMT Events Events Events Events
ID City Appcoximate Street Location �SdB �OdB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 866 221 l4 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 87 t 304 15 0
3 Minneapolis W Etmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1549 341 24 0
4 Minneapo(is Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1673 1762 64 4
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3983 1927 6l8 169
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 5391 2602 1542 466
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 2633 966 126 3
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1902 619 54 2
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 41 15 1 0
10 St. Faul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 149 22 2 0
11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 4$ 5 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 51 2 0 0 �
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1b09 396 21 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 3213 1029 147 0
15 . Mendota Heights Cullen Sueet & Lexington Avenue 2051 651 79 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 2533 1432 143 8
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 26 5 12 1�
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 623 182 65 13
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 391 122 37 l
20 I2ichfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 135 32 3 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1016 206 3 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1010 lU5 l 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2362 1613 218 34
24 ' Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1570 257 26 0
Note: AR7S data missing for /.97 days
• cr.c, � . _ .
Page 14 • Aviation Noise'& Satellite Programs
�tiletropolitan Airports Commission
. �
�'en Loudest t�ircraft I�oise Events Identified
RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st St.
Minneapolis
Date Time ,� M� �/D
Level
10/27/9611:51:46 DC9 94.5 D
10/27/9616:12:43 B727 94.4- D
10/ 18/96 10:12:56 DC9 94.2 D
10/1519616:06:18 B727 94.0 D
10/27/96 20:39:31 DC9 93.8 D
10/17/96 20:44:15 B727 93.7 D
10/23/96 21:21:57 DC9 92.5 D
10/2419617:45:26 $727 92.5 A
10/19/9612:34:02 B�27 91.4 D
10/22/96 4:45:54 B747 91.4 D
RMT #3: W. Elmwood S� & Belmont r�ve.
Minneapolis
�� ,� A/C Mag �
Ty� I.evd
10/28/96 9:20:57 B727 98.7 D
10/24/9612:�4:09 B727 98.7 D
10/27/9617:00:27 B727 98.5 D
10/07/9617:2'7:20 DC9 97.6 � D
10/19/9611:43:07 B727 96.4 A
10/27/9614:58:58 B747 95.9 D
10/17/96 9:53:57 B727 95.'7 D
10/2219616:14:01 B727 95.6 D
10/21/9618:24:19 B727 95.4 A
10/29/94 8:20:20 Dc9 95.4 D
RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S�
Minneapotis
Date Time �C Max �
'I`ype Level
10/07/9617:2�:53 B727 97.2 D
10/21/9619:41:42 DC9 93.7 D
10/27l9614:59:23 B747 92.9 D
l0/15/9616:Q6:12 B727 92.8 D
10/29/9611:12:10 BA31 92.6 A
10/12/96 20:06:31 MD80 92.0 D
10/29/9613:51:59 B727 91.1 A
10/OS/96 22:12:40 B727 90.8 D
10/24/9616:10:35 B727 90.8 D .
10/12/9619:39:31 B737 90.6 D
RIVdT #4: Clakland Ave. �i 49th St.
Minneapolis
A/C Max
�� �� Type Level �
10/30/9616:55:20 6727 103.7 D
10/ 15/96 6:54:54 B737 102.2 D
10/ 10/96 7:48:44 DC9 101.3 D
10/O8/96 6:55:59 8737 101.0 D
10/24/96 9:23:59 B727 100.0 D
10/23/96 21:17:07 B727 99.2 D
10/30/9616:02:55 B727 99.1 D
10/21/9618:42:24 8727 98.4 D
10/08J9617:13:08 DC9 98.1 D
10/19/'9411:56:33 B727 98.1 D
r � � - � � ��=Note: ARr!'.4'43'ata missing for /.97 days
-� � Aviatioh°Noise & Sateltite Programs
Page I S
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
'' 1 1• • � • • �;• .,�
,
RMT #�: 12th Ave. & SSth St.
Minneapotis
Date Time � M� A/D
Level
10/23/96 9:06:48 B727 107.1 D
10/23/9612:11:20 B727 107.0 D
10/ 18/96 7:0�:1 � � DC 10 106.6 D
10/27/9617:00:09 B727 105.6 D
10/22/'96 22:10:47 B727 105.4 D
10/22/96 20:27:28 DC9 105.3 D
10/22/'9613:38:03 DC9 105.2 D
10/24/96 8:16:19 B727 105.1 D
10/20/9� 12:02:46 B727 103.0 D
10/25/9419:51:23 B727 102.7 D
RM� #'7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S�
Rich6eld
�� T� A/C Mag �
Type Levd
10/02/96 8:23:45 B�27 101.5 D
10/14/96 20:SS:07 B727 101.0 D
10/2?J'9618:42:36 B727 100.1 D
10/23/96 7:23:41 B727 � 99.6 D
10/27/96 9:53:24 8727 99.0 � D
10J23/9610:01:20 B727 98.4 D
LOJ10/9611:35:16 B727 98.3 D
10/07/9613:36:59 B727 98.2 D
10/22/96 t4:48:40 DC9 98.2 D
10/22/9416:53:30 B727 98.2 D
RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St�
Minneapolis
Date Time �C Max �
Type Levet
10/17/96 7:25:28 B727 111.2 D
10/09/96 9:29:19 B727 110.4 D
10/28/9618:45:48 DC9 110.1 D
10/OS/9611:53:52 B727 109.4 D
LO/21/9611:58:35 B727 109.4 D
10/ 10/96 20:08:59 DC9 1093 I7
10/ 17/96 7:03:00 DC9 1093 D
� 10/2'7/96 9:32:17 B�27 108.9 D
t0/15l96 6:55:48 Dc9 108.8 D
!0/13/9613:59:01 B727 107.4 D
RMT #$: LongFellow Ave. & 43rd S�
Minneapolis
Date Zlme A/C Max
Type Level � .
10/U6/96 L3:31:35 B727 100.3 D
10l28/9613:55:23 B727 100.2 � D
10/08/'96 �:57:18 B727 � 99.1 D
t0/17/9615:01:58 DC9 99A D
. (0/15/9611:59:45 B727 .98.5 D
10/13/961334:46 B727 98.2 D
t0/17/9613:32:59 B727 98A D
10/24/9615:09:07 DC9 97.9 D
LO/28/9614:01:37 B72� 97J D
(0/17/9617:30:03 B727 96J D
Note: ARTS data missing for 1.97 days
Page l6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
Metropolit<�n Airpvrts Commission
'I'en Loudest Aircra�t Noise Even�.s Identified
RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. RMT #10: [tasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
S� Paul
Date Time ,�� �� A/D
Level
10/29/9617:35:55 DC9 91.7 A
10/06/96 22:13:07 DC 10 9 t.2 D
10/26/96 23:25:08 B727 90.4 A
10/24/9613:41:24 DC9 903 A
!0/26/96 23:13:48 B737 90.3 A
10/!4/9611:49:04 LR25 90.0 A
10/22/96 4:46:20 B747 89.6 D
10/29/96 17:4b:14 DC 10 89.5 A
10/2?196 22:31:26 DC 10 89.1 D
10/26/96 22:37:14 B727 89.0 A
ItIVIT #il: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave.
S� Paul
Date Time � �'iaac �
Leve!
10/03/9614:30:11 DC9 89.9 A
10/23f96 22:37:32 SF34 88.5 D
l0/31/96 22:47:02 UC9 88.3 D
! 0/02/96 13:01: 24 FK 10' 87.1 A•
10/04/9613:29:12 DC9 87.1 A
10/04/9613:29:29 DC9 85.8 D
10/03/9616:03:38 BE02 85.7 D
10/10/96 L6:50:45 DC9 85.7 D
l0/08/96 9:09:2 ! DC9 85.1 D
t 0/ I 5/96 15:07:02 DC9 85.0 D
St. Paul
Date Time �C Max �
Type Level
10/22/96 4:45:54 B747 98.3 D
10/29/96 17:46:52 DC 10 94.0 A
10/24/9613:42:02 MD80 93.7 A
10/26/96 23:25:50 B727 93.4 A
10/29/9617:36:29 B747 92.7 A
10/29/9617:41:31 DC9 92.6 A
10/29/9617:44:50 DC9 92.1 A
10/26l96 23:19:38 B727 91.7 A
10/26/96 23:41:31 B727 91.4 A
10/26/96 21:33:44 MD80 90.8 A
RMT #12: tltton S� & Rockwood Ave.
St. Paut
Date '15me � Max �
� Level
10/30/96 6:51:37 DC9 93.0 A
10/30/9615:38:03 DC9 89.1 A
10/29/9612:46:40 DC9 � 88.6 D
10/25/9611:01:28 HS25 88.4 D
10/02/96 9:22:45 MD80 88.3 D
10/3l/96 7:58:39 SW3 88.2 D
10/24/96 8:13:46 B737 87.9 D
10104/9611:00:57 BE02 87.2 D
10/02/96 12:16:1( S F34 86.7 A
10/04/9613:48:32 BE02 86.7 D
�•'�? 1''�� �tN��1'e: ARTS data missing for l.97 duys
��� ' � �� �`� ` � "Av�ation Noise & Satellite Programs
- Page l7
1�iztropo(it�n �irpc�rts Commission
. � ,�. . � . .. �. .�,
�
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
Date Time 'vC Max �
Type Level
10/29/96 20:53:29 B727 96.3 D
10/04/9611:58:38 B737 95.2 D
10/ 19/96 9:37:56 B 727 94.6 D
10/04/9610:04:35 B727 94.4 D
10/t9/96 8:41:45 B727 94.2 D
10/l l/96 7:18:38 B727 93.7 D
10/04/96 7:13:51 B727 93.5 D
10/Ol/96 4:57:32 B727 93.4 D
10/O1/96 6:14:43 DC9 92.8 D
10/29/96 3:08:45 B'747 92.3 D
RMT #15: Cullore S� & Lexangton Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date Time � Mas �
Leae1
10/17/96 7:59:48 B727 99.8 D
10/26l9618:57:14 B�27 99.8 D
10/29/96 20:48:21 B727 99.8 D
10/11/96 7:17:56 B727' 99.6 D
10/19/96 9:52:13 B727 98.8 D
10/04V96 22:22:00 DC9 97.1 D
l0/19/9619:35:05 B727 96.3 D
10/29/96 8:04:29 B727 96.1 D
10/04/9611:58:16 6727 959 D
10/OS/96 8:35:19 DC9 95.9 D
Page 18
RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St.
Eagan
Date Time �C Max �
'I�pe Level
10/01/9613:42:52 B727 99.9 D
10/15/96 20:10:30 B727 99.4 D
10/ 17/96 8:38:55 FK 10 99.3 D
10/29/9619:35:47 B727 98.8 D
10/29/9618:52:30 B727 97.3 D
10/17/96 8:24:22 B727 96.8 D
10/29/'96 t 1:06:02 DC9 96.2 D
!0/25/96 9:59:48 B727 95.4 D
10/OS/9611:48:19 B727 95.3 D
10/OS/96 9:24:41 DC9 95.1 D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & �las Lane
Eagan
. Date Time � MaR � .
Level
10/26/9616:47:13 B727 103.0 D
10/OS/9613:31:58 DC9 101.7 . D
10/29%9618:52:18 B727 101.6 D
10/Ol/9613:44:44 B727 101.4 D
10/26/96 7:47:35 B�27 101.4 D
10/ll/9616:11:03 B727 lOL2 D
10/05/9616:55:17 DC9 101.1 D
LO/17/'96 8:38:42 B�27 101.1 � D
l0/25/'96 8:57:46 DC 10 I01.1 A.
l0/ 17/96 8:14:08 B727 l01 A D
, .. ;;�;Nvt,e: ARTScfuta missing fvr /.9�days
,,. Avia�4�p Noise & Satellite Programs
C.
r"� �j
Metropolitan Airports Commissio�
, � � . . � �, . . �. ,• • �
RMT #17: 84th St & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
Date Time ,�� �� �►�D
Level
10/24/9612:29:14 DC9 101.4 A
10/13/96 7:25:2t B727 100.9 D
10/28/96 8:54:15 B727 97.8 D
10/17/96 11:03:06 B727 97.0 D
10/04/9615:24:52 674'7 96.0 D
10/28/9613:49:13 B�47 96.0 D
10/12/9615:40:22 DC9 95.9 D
10/24/9612:23:39 B747 9S� D
10/27/96 8:01:26 B727 93.9 D
10/09/94 7:34:21 DC9 93.8 D
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St
�loomington
Datc Tia�e � Y.ev�e9 �
10/10/96 8:58:45 B727 100.5 D
10/24/96�6:19:33 B727 99.6 D
10/27/96 8:33:12 B727 99.0 D
10/06/96 9:08:20 B727 � 98.5 D�
10/27/96 8:14:02 B72'7 97.9 D
10/2'7/96 7:21:05 B727 9�.8 D
l0/12/96 7:27:28 B727 97.7 D
10/O1/96 7:15:04 B72'7 97.8 D
10/10/96 9:13:25 B727 96.8 D
10/201'94 6:11:16 B727 96.8 D
RM'Y' #18: 75th St, & 17th Ave.
I2ichfield
Date �me �C �� A✓D
Type Levei
10/26/9615:18:30 DC9 104.1 D
10/ 12/96 15:40:05 B 747 103.4 D
10/28/9613:48:55 DC9 102.1 D
10/13/96 7:24:55 B727 101.8 D
10/28/96 8:53:57 B727 101.3 D
10/04/9615:24:32 B747 101.2 D
10/12/96 22:00:44 B�27 101.1 D
10/07/96 21:18:58 DC9 100.6 D
10/12/9616:06:55 B727 100.5 � D
10/27/96 8:01: I 1 B727 t00.5 D
RI�IT #20: 75th St. & 3rd t�ve.
Richfield
Date '15me A/C Max � '
Type Level
10/29/96 23:14:29 B727 94.5 D
10/t2/9616:07:10 B727 91.5 D
10/01196 7:01:30 DC9 91.3 D
10/06196 7:00:45 B737 87.4 D
10/15/96 7:01:48 B737 87.1 D
10/27/96 7:13:54 B727 87.0 D
10/23/96 22:46:21 B727 86.9 D
10/29/96 23:00:23 B737 86.6 D
� 10/27/96 2!: 35:46 DC ! 0 86.2 D
-�10719/9412:49:45 DC9 86.1 D
.'' Note: AR�iiata'ini�sing for l.97 days
Aviation Noise & Satettite Programs
Page L9
[vtetropolitan Airporrs Commissio�
Ten Loudesi Aircrafi Ioloise Events Ider�tified
_ _
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S�
Inver Grove Heights
Date Time ,�� M� A/D
Level
10/19/9615:21:06 B727 90.9 D
10/24/96l$:22:32 B727 90.9 D
10/14/96 7:35:16 B727 90.6 D
10/ l0l'96 17:10:28 DC9 90.1 A
10l29/96 0:43:57 B737 $9.3 D
10J03/96 8:57:42 B727 89A D
10/0419618:17:17 DC9 88.7 D
10/OS/9611:24:17 DC9 88.3 D
10/03/9618:18:37 B727 87.9 D
10/04/9613:23:10 DC9 87.9 D
1tN�T #23s.End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota fieights
Date Time AJC Max �
� Type I.e�el
J�
10/04/9611:5$:08 DC9 104J D
10/04/'9610:04:04 B727 104.5 D
10/04l'9616:31:31 B727 104.1 D
10104/'96 13:40:00 DC9 ' 103.9 D
10/0 L/96 6:14:05 B727 l03.6 D
10/11/96 9:21:05 B72? 103.0 D
10/04/96 10:15: t 8 DC9 102.6 D
10/04/96 7:13:18 B727 102.5 D
10/14/9611:55:21 B727 102.4 D
10/29/96 20:49:16 DC9 102.4 D
Page 20
�
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
Date Time �C Max �
T`ype Level
10/ 17/96 9:17:31 DC9 91.9 D
10/0419613:14:14 B737 89.7 D
10/28/96 21:58:09 DC9 889 D
10/29/9619:36:34 B727 88.7 D
10/30/96 5:23:45 B727 88.5 A
10/29/9619:42:45 B727 87.4 D
10/24/96 21:53:32 B727 8�.3 D
10/11/9616:55:02 B727 87.0 D
10126/9618:31:12 . I7C9 87.0 D
10/24/9619:06:54 B727 86.9 D
RMT #24: Chapet Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
Date Time A✓C Maa � �
Type I.e�ct
10/22/96 6:30: l 1 B'127 101.8 A
1Or22/9619:04:28 B72� 100.3 A
10/IS/96 23:02:09 B727 99.5 A
10/09/96 19:Q4:28 DC 10 98.6 A
LO/14/'96 7:15:37 DC9 97.3 D
10/27/96 5:04:08 B727 97.0 A
10/28/9618:04:31 B727 97.0 A
10/ 17/96 t 9:04:28 DC9 96.9 A
10/29/9618:04:28 B727 96.8 D
10/3I/96 18:04:28 � B727 96. L A
Note: ARTS data missing for 1.97 days
Aviation I�toise & Satetlite Programs
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� �'light �rack �ase Map
Airport Noise and Operations Mon�toring �ystem
�» ��'���� Aviation Noise & Satel(ite Programs � Page 21
�y� t'�,,,l�v.. ���� w�'. �+�ti'����
.
�� ,, , .� �� � .
��� "`'� *r, r, _.. ��,�. . {�
��� *,\` \ ; ` ; '�'• � \;�� i
� � � ����
:�l��\ ti� ".,� � � \��:, '
�%.. �.. "� � . !' ��� � �\
— � � e .:• � �� �'_,
. �+ 1�� w. •: �\\ �
' � a
� _ � ��,����"�� � �� �"i:
r:'� .!i i� i'�� ��� —
� -
�y'„ r ii � . : � �� �� � � :.
�:� �/��j/ �,� � /..� �.. :
� �\`/ � � Ii� "� n,\►Iw \� � �
�` \� I J ♦ � �' �„1 '� � �J��.w�
h ` � i►�� :� , \, „�,��IG�%��/% :
� 51R� ��`, .� �
• r � q�Qi� �=.:. .
'-��� � � ��,\�� �1�c � .
- � ��4.���� �`� �r �'� 1.
� � ��1 �,�'/ 1
�'i�;.:l:'► �';�1�.;
;.�`.�.�`�r ,
. .�
:� ,..� � :� \` �.. � � •.
1�`►' ��
`= '
��
�/'�,%��: �:•. —
�..va
/��� ~���� ,� �
,.�=,i'r,�►� - ,A� , `. �
Ii �-•= '�
�r�`irll►,_�r�. '.���.:•..�:
�,� �.��� •..a�•�, � , ; ;
.� ���\\`\`_';;���'.
••\�\����:����i�� ,� F
�\� � ����`�`�,�� r �
:. \�, � ��:��;�; ��� � ,. `;
� , ,� �
•`�� �. �`�\�,,��.;:
� � •:�� •.'. .
'"\•� '; I .�. .
:"� � � '
: _ i:��` •.
. �► �� !;. `�� �
~`•����; ```, �� \
: ✓ . �. .,� �r' 1�i'.�` ��� . �..
.. �'��� J����1I�) � • �:
N �IIr. rt �
v � •
► ,_,,. -
, �'�� ✓ � -: �� ,,
�v:
� •+ � •�\ �,,� �'\ �.
. � :��►�`I. /�/ i � \�, �\\�
� '� ��,�:'���'_'•� ;' �.� _: \"`�
�".� i / . ��, � �
�, �'. , �` � � �..
, .�
" � � �.�':.\�
r
,��` , r `�h�
� �> �
� '�,� ��,;
. . � �. h � 1 �`�\
. • . � . � . . `�\ _ • `�... . ��\
�•.�i �;����h`� :�= ��
— LL'` - ����►��►�i%:: .
' s r �\V�I..����
�' F ��
,� � .- ��y`�,.�!�
� f�.�:`��� �c-�s.�► �
. a��F•� ���..�
..� H'"� �'u":
.. , � „ :
r• � I � J7� � � r- �
♦ I .� ""�
�/ i ir�� �r► \ /•�s��.� ..
✓�'/ ,\' ��'► �,6'r aflr
. �,�i� `�� �'►� b' i�'�j ��.
� : .� w�� ``'`w!i Fr
..�'s�� ti ��I �y
�'' \'�'1.*� \\A\r �vN� " s .i
.. e�\�� r � ��. /
� � �� .
- • '`' ,;��� "� r�f�t '
♦ ��l�� � ` �r� Nr :1 :
I��'`C��� � . �'.� `'�f� i �.
....--n�►'-+ .� w �J
��',n�„y . ti: .
i-
'�`\�� �
r
��~'�►��\ `\ ;
r, . ,.�,'� �� .� ti
�!1��I����V.���. ���\� .. . . .. '•
�.�. ��,��.:� . - 1
\��`�\ � . ti•r� , "- �.
. �\� \�` .. . .;,� • ' � ;.«
L.` �����` `\` .�: ` +
. ' � `„„��. � � .,��\�� •
\\-�.���:1 '`'`�
� �,\\\\.` i�/ � -
\ �. . y r ,
� ��� �Qiro .,�
� • `'� �1 ` : � � �! "�`
:\ � w „��, ' � �
, „- ,�,� ., _� \ �
►n'_`` �- . `ry ;; :� �1`''�� +\�
=" - �iti��'�i,`.,��� '\\�
%� - .�. 1� `=�i _.
;, . - '—; �t•rJ� .
% :, �,'�M�!ri►; --
.,��,,
� `�f'�����.% � _
��� li�►"S7
,,� �N `, �1, • '=��
V
� ' . . ;, `�� �. 'oi.�\ ` �� .. '
` �.� i ��'``.' �►
.. . � �^ '��::��r.�.,\,� : .�'�
'\•
. - \_
• .\. � �.
:`� � / ��'. .
. 1 ,''.4 ; ; :
. , ' . • _ :.._ .. � �'.
Mecropolitan Airports Commission�
� Analysis o� Aircraft Noise Events - Aircra�t Ldn d�(A)
October Ol io October 31, 1995
Noise Nionitor Locations
LDate #1 #2
�� 59.0 61.5
2 57.3 56.7
3 57.9 53.2
4 59.5.. 58.7
$ 57.9 61.9
6 60.1 55.2
'] 58.7 58.0
$ 58.0 61.9
9 55.2 53.0
10 5'7.6 55.8
11 57.6 49.9
l2 . 55.9 53.4
13 54•7 49.6
14 61.6 62.4
15 59.3 54.8 �
16 57.2 53.7
l� 57.9 58.4
1 g 58.5 61.1
19 60. i 53.8
20 55.8 58.8
21 54.2 57.1
22 57.0 54.5
23 59.2 64.8
24 60.7 56.3
25 55.9 49.2
26 62.4 62.6
2'7 59.4 57.9
28 59.5 54.3
29 64.3 62.9
30 � ` 59.2 *
31� � 60.7 * �
:�m4:; . � �
tV%��:� n6 ; 59.8 ° " t.9
. , ...
���u,; .,,, �.
#4 #5 #6 #7 #8
65.1 71.4 72.2 63.8 52.0
61.2 73.4 80.3 68.0 64_9
62.0 70.5 * 58.1 59.1
64.2 70.6 74.4 67.6 60.9
60.7 68.7 71.5 66.7 57.3
64.0 76.3 79.7 68.3 65.3
65.0 * $1.1 70.3 67.0
70.8 * 82.3 68.9 65.2
58.8 74.4 79.9 69.1 64.6
67.4 77.4 81.7 � 72.0 65.2
63.9 69.4 71.7 69.4 59.3
65.6 74.9 78.6 65.3 61.8
63.1 74.6 78.1 65.7 62.2
64.4 70.6 * * 63_7
71.6 77.4 82.8 62.4 63.9
68.1 75.2 80.5 63.4 65.4
65.8 79.8 83.9 � * 69.0
61.1 76.1 77.9 * 64•3
62.6 71.1 71.4 65.5 60.4
62.4 76.1 80.3 69.2 63.9
� * * * 66.5
6'7.9 79.5 82.7 72.1 68.1
69.4 78.0 81.8 72.1 66.6
67.8 76.2 78.9 65.8 67.2
64.3 68.3 71.7 51.7 68.5
66.1 72.9 72.3 51.8 69.1
67.7 75.3 78.4 66.3 64.1
65.1 75.5 78.9 65.2 66.0
69.8 74.8 80.3 64.7 65.6
67.9 74.8 80.4 * *
�v - 75.9 . .�J8.7 * . .. *
`69 q'� - -�g:6 c, �• 82.3 _ �..7Ua5. . _ 67..2
.,. ;:;;:�. - • ,;
1�ote: ARTS data missing for 1.97 days
A'viation Noise & Satetlite Programs
�#9
51.5
53.8
47.6
4 LO
46.3
59.0
49.6
51.9
44.7
43.0
52.1
42.9
*
47.0
51.4
*
56.4
53.4
46.1
47.2
50.6
61.8
58.5
49.8
58.1
56.1
52.7
53.6
55.8
*
*
�
58.4
#10
57.9
48.6
56.3
61.3
57.3
59.1
50.8
61.3
43.3
52.2
61.4
57.7
52.5
58.1
51.5
51.6
60.0
52.1
60.8
65.0
52.2
66.2
54.3
60.0
59.5
67. (
54.4
62.2
62.7
5$.4
53.8
61:8
#11
61.6
61.6
55.1
56.5
60.3
53.9
51.1
52.4
48.8
52.9
53.9
54.2
46.6
51.4
56.4
56.4
53.9
42.8
56.7
50.0
50.9
53.0
59.1
55.2
63.0
58.4
51.0
58.3
55.0
57.2
57. t
�
57:6
#12
56.9
53.6
56.4
57.0
*
57.0
55.4
58.8
45.7
50.2
56.4
56.0
61.7
54.4
52.4
52.1
56.8
50.0
52.0
54.3
55.6
53.6
6t.5
54.9
58.1
55.9
50.4
59.9
57.1
52.7
52.9
��
58.3
* Less �hun tx•e'nh• fnur huurs �Jdatu �n�ctiluhle
Page 27
�tetropolitan Airports Commission
Analysis of Aircraft I�1o�se Events - Aircraft Ldn cl8(A)
October Ol to October 31, 1995
Noise Nionitor Locations
Date #13 #14 #15 �#16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24
1 67.1 65.6 69.1 69.4 50.2 54.5 52.0 54.9 61.2 58.0 69.5 67:7
2 44.9 63.6 49.7 68.1 47.0 57.8 48.4 49.1 44.2 54.5 60.7 67.7
3 64.8 69.8 66.8 71.8 56.4 54.3 44.1 43.9 64.1 54.6 68.5 64.3
4 67.8 68.8 71.6 71.1 58.6 62.3 50.5 51.0 65.7 56.6 70.3 68.2
5 65.8 66.3 69.1 71.9 46.6 51.2 48.3 44.5 63.4 59.7 69.0 67.2
6 55.7 63.$ 55.2 67.6 54.7 66.9 64.3 53.0 54.0 53.2 57.4 � 69.3
7 57.8 G6.1 62.4 68.5 6 t.0 64.2 54.5 52.5 56.8 55.9 61.8 64.5
$ 58.8 64.1 62.6 b6.8 59.7 66.4 54.9 56.4 57.5 54.0 64.6 66.3
9 47.6 66.3 50.4 69.7 6�:4 70.5 70.2 58.9 51.6 56.0 50.9 70.1
10 54•0 66.6 56.9 69.6 56.7 65.5 61.0 54.7 58.5 56.7 56.8 70.0
11 65.8 66.2 70.1 70.8 47.7 55.8 56.8 41.2 61.8 57.9 68.9 66.6
12 52.0 65.0 62.4 67.9 62.1 72.6 69.8 57.1 58.6 52.1 61.3 63.8
13 53.4 63.9 54.4 66.7 63.2 68.4 69.2 51.4 53.6 49.0 59.0 66.5
14 65.9 68.4 68.8 69.5 56.7 61.5 53.5 49.� 64.1 55.4 68.1 65.2
15 63.3 67.6 64.3 72.3 60.3 69.9 69.6 56.1 62.5 53.9 67.1 71.2
16 63.8 65.1 64.2 70.5 58.2 69.5 66.2 54.1 61.2 58.4 66.2 65.2
17 60.5 69.0 64.0 72.6 57.9 * 55.6 59.3 53.6 60.8 63.4 68.3
18 4'7.4 63.5 57.1 � 68.1 53.5 .�4.3 53.0 52.5 42.4 53.0 64.2 63.6
19 66•5 65.3 68.6 69.4 49.8 51.3 48.8 44.2 62.4 52.6 67.0 69.3
2Q 62.4 66.8 68.1 71.4 59.4 66.4 60.3 58.6 60.7 59.1 67.0 65.3
21 54.9 62.5 59.0 67.3 56.8 67.0 70.6 52.9 * * 65.8 66.3
22 50.9 63.9 53.7 69.2 51.8 60.8 52.6 56.8 45.8 59.0 67.3 69.5
23 49.6 69.2 59.9 73.6 61.1 62.2 54..7 59.1 � 56.7 60.3 62.9 . 66.5
24 64.0 71.1 � 67.6 72.3 * 69.8 70.5 52.2 62.7 64.5 66.7 67.7
25 63.3 66.9 65.8 7 t.4 44.5 54.7 54.3 47.9 61.4 62.2 64.7 66.3
26 62.3 66.0 67.1 73.3 52.0 �69.4 56.9 50.5 58.4 SS.6 65.7 63.2
2'7 44.0 64.2 52.6 68.6 62.4 70.8 70.7 55.0 48.2 59.0 64.8 69.1
28 62.8 66.5 65.0 69.7 63.8 71.1 68.4 54.5 61.8 62.2 6fi.4 65.9
29 66.4 68.6 69.7 72.3 58.5 * 49.5 65.7 63.2 61.9 69.1 69.3
30 * 66.2 C0.9 71.4 58.2 67. t 67.1 56.7 SOJ 64.2 54.8 65.4
3�,; 51.7 64.7 59.1 69.9 57.9 59.4 57.2 58.9 52.1 59.9 54..8 67:1
Mo: I,i�,n 66.8 68.4 = 69.0 �.72.6 63 2,;:;b8..,3 <, � 4,i;' S9. l 63.5 62.3 : 68.7 68.7
��,.:.; ;..�, .,:.. ,,.. ; ... . . ,
`�l�ote: ARTS�fd�ariiissing�'vY'i:971lcrys +
* Less thun tx•en»• four hours of dura uvaituble
Page 28 ., Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs .
�
�
'
' At:: ... �.,� 4 .
� y.�{,
.�� L I 3 t� T' y M�i
a y�'
�c�,y a t,..' 4� t+,��
, r ,
?'��zi .:�'s"a� �� �.^��'+'Jy+ �
'"�i�d�iCX3`:, ai�F� - '�'i�i.���i v�f`3'��'
.., .�T.�;4.'�S:1Cd`f•-'
t , �
,
�r„�; n
1�.-�r k r � a�- a� .`` � �iA �' ' ',� { � ,:
_ ti T',, ����� �����fq' S�*i�' �'s�'" �' � v
' �. �+s ty i��'S."' �x s '.^_ d�t.�ikw: y�ns��„� _
-'��;'�K.`i'':r:�.=+� �i. .,�,ti -� :3�ar �
,,: _ ._,;. ,, ., �.,:...
�t+.,1s�;r�� . �. .... : ,1.1"_q�:r��.., . ,r,.Tr �r..;:: . . .
\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\\��\\\\\\\\\\\��\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\O\\\O\O\��0���``'�\\O
p p� o0 0
p O O O
.
•
•
•
�
0
•
o, ao 0
O o 0
i'•. ' � '. I
�
; :tis:�
...��� �
':;('f�;;.:`';
��y'�:;`i
•}::3:;�.
c�:::::::>°:
•
� �;:<:_::>:
�:::::::>:::: �
����::':>>:�:.
� :�::`�:��>�
N
O
� '
�
\O
cn
�
O
0►�a
�
�
�
�
W
O
�.
�
�
.
�
�
0 0 0
0
► ;,
rn c� a
0 0 0
u
�"'�
�
N
O
�
�
�
CJ'1
�s
O
�
Or4�'.
�
G
�
CD
W
O
v
�
\O
�
;.�
.
►;;
.'
0 0 0
n
�
_"'r
N
O
v
�
�
�
t�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
CC
W
O
v
�+
�
�
�
6
�
0
� •.. '
�
CD
� `�
O.�;::::
� �
�
�C
N
O
# �`
C� �D
� �.
� �
� o
� � �•
� �
�
� �
c� �
�
0 0
� �
� �
o `"
�
�
°�
�
�
�
�
�
rn
•
�, •
,r
►:
.
�
O O �
�
�
00 0
p O O
�
�
�
N
O
v
�
�
�
(.t't
�
O
�
0►q�
�
�
�
�
w
O
�
�
�
e-
►
•
o, o0 0
p o O
0
�
�'
��_
\�` . \\ \\� \.,�` . � �- .. �:. `_ �.' ` � �` . �. :' - ♦ . ; 1 ��� � �� ��' .�� �
►.,\ � � `\���� `�� � •
�` �;�. \�� � \ � ` � � \ ��� \� \. � '�ti. ; . ♦ �,`ti � � 1 �, �
". �\1�����\��� :� ~ � ��... �\7w �.�..� � ��� � : ti` v� rA�� i. � � � ►
', '��`��\���.��. �" ����1-• - .. .ti� .,� ~ �\� . �, ,. � i ��:�
��..\�.`�.. � -� \C� - ���� . _ z � �. `. .:
"�'�'�`�. -•�`\�.1w`~�'\\`���.\' . . ',+, �.'�� ' �. � .�.\� `\� � . ` � ` ' __, � �:� �'� � . . . � � ; `, ` � ��
r
`�...�.,."'\�\� �.\'�;-��....��\ �`� \'r� .. \` ... � . . � . " ��;� � �i� � �. . � \ . ��. :
`� �:' � �
'��►n, `"�;-`.�°�`` ��\ �..\ � �• . � \� . \ � . . � � �. �':. � : . � � � t :�
\��^.....,c,�; �'�:\\ `^ � \ �� .. \ �..�.\�`� \. . ` v .. . .
"��y..'�`"'+r.. �-\\ �� �.�. � � �� � �' -�� `� � . � • �'
�'�`��+.` � '��"�,�. \ � \ � ' � . +~� �'�\\� �� ` \\ \ � �� � h � : '� ��l 5�..
�
,► \ � �+.,���.-\� \ ..., .��.. ..'�.,�, � � �. � � � � \ .'` �
: `�„`'�--� � — ��'�-.��, �� ." \."`��� ���w` ��� �\�\�� ��� �� � �
`; �
"-- ,..,``_,-1�;�'_ \�`\� \ � \� �\\ � �� ,.. �. �� ., \ �Q � � �� �
_
."�, ..,,\ '�„�. .`\�\�'�� \+ ��� �. .. -� �' \
`. � .,.
��',:R7�i �` -�,�~\ !►�, `�.; ��...�.y � \\ \ �� ` � .Y�� � \��:; �h ��
,s�-� �•.�. .�.�. �.\ -�.� r.� `� .. -. .
""'�.�.. �� �A... "�. 1/i � 1 �� � \�v. � �. �..\ �� � 4 ,. , :
^`�\ `►...�_��Ilr ^`-- �\�"��\� ''► �' \ ���\ : a �\. �. � � � . .
� �
�`"\�.`""- �""'�,� �!'�-`�``1" \��� � '� �� � �..� ��\ � �\�� \ � . � .
���"'��„ �.. .:�►.....'"�,,�..�'-._ ��� �\ .. \ � . .� . \ . . \
� -.,�=-►,�,:•.,,,,�--�.. � —+� �+ ��\� � �� \ -.. � ,..
=+.. -�. ,.. � ' � �� � �
1� ---.,�`,- �II► ►\► =..... ,.;,� � , •,�� � �'\ � . � �: ��;, • . �� '
�— �,� .�►,�-." �►�� � .� ,,,,��'� `���...� • � .: � .
�i ��'�,�'�� „_�...'"+-„"'=,-�.�� -'�.�.�� �� \\ \ ��1\�\ � � �� �� ' :
,/-,�r,,.�► -•s.:.c.�'"�-,�_►= `�-„"�, ,._ .� � \.. n
�
`` ""v��?`'�"...��i!� �\� \ '� � � �\. \� � � ''� � .
�� '"i� `�—"-'��,1►.�\_i',"��_�\�..� � -.., �� ,. .� .
.... �...._-�,. •...��...; _� :
�'"'�=�-.� ..• �:�, ""�,,,�"��w��,�\\"�.� ``;, , ~ � ' • . . . '
`�a„-� ',= � ,.���` � ti
� "",,,,,-�. � � �'`�. � � .
...,,,,. .��.��.
�� , . - ��_ �-_��`+`' `�',\�`. ; . .1
�\
��� �_�'�--r� �_.''i'��',,'/'.:w\\,h�`:`i �. • � . . . .
♦ , �w�� . ` . . . .
♦ �.�.`r��,,,,�-���•'••�,�p,:�-::` ��� :t, �� ,.
1� � i, �� �\��� � . ,
1 �1 I \� '''�
� , `_��;� `\1; � ''r : .
,. � � -5� �f�/ �.�r d,.�.: � .
� �% �� 4 � '�� �
�`L � � l�'' �
\�'�!' `�►/'� �Z�;c•. _„ • : �:: ,
, -....,... .,;
�►►.�� ��..� •,,;, - - ,
�'�-�►�' `� �.,. �, (,�`,
� �'`_�' `` ♦ � � � � `���� .
``� , �4 , � J `.
'` �n'�►.,� �=',�- \ �, « �i `/�.
-'��► '.��.4i�\\� �'1��' � '
=�_ ,_-� \'.'�' `, �.�'
j � �� \`��►+;�� � /�' �. / �:.' .
i- �* � �` "` �.. ���:�..'",- �, �'�� F����' � .
"�r �`►-'�►._ `""- ��".���''1 ��."`► . � `i �y..
�� � `��� r� � i ���-'aIr
�� �t:�,���•- -=- .-i-=..
` �
�� � �"� I_�IIi�� ... .. `1.
c.7� � .�►1� +'��+�► =%I�. �/j i
�.' �. '�' �� I�"•iii'' i.i..- i :�� � �'.
,�����...._ �I �. �� �/�i�/.,.a- ' .
`,`�'A�'_`�./"�! ��`�� �i ,
►'�i rr►%',�/�/''"� ---' ''
/� � ' Ii �'��..-- --�-- -- . . , . . .
�l�'�� �_•.i1► �i� -�'�:•-'/%� ,-� .�
,-+•�r,:i�.•- �......- ;r. ,.� .i i , �
�.�a�- ., ���"'���i'� ��i•r '. . ,� . �. . � �
,�.7�'�1.� // �,%Ij �' -� ' , . . .
� i�i��li ��/// . /, r
�...��� ��l��.i"' .�I"'/ / •/ / . . . � : .
i- y . '" .=; , , , , ,,.
.� ,
./)..i� ''v' . �. _ . , ,
�/����''' ri „ . '. � % / �� / � : , �.l ` > .
..� � --i'`/ �'% ./" i . ,r! .;;i. r!.. n .
..�.> ; r-,.%.�/i�. . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .... .�. . . . .%: .i � . _.....r_r,tr�. . . . . .. . � .
C
c�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Proposed North �oundary Corridor Gate Penetration t�nalysis
�.�� �, . , � . � ��
• � ''�
� ,�� . . ;�;.�,, • � � � ��� •� �� '
.
'. 1. . . . .lii 1 . _ � f i f, � . ,
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs
Metcopolitan Airpocts Commission�
�._
I�inneapolis - �t. P�ui International Airport
August 1996
�
�
m
:� �». . � ' , • • )•�, •
. • , � ' 1 . • � ��
/, 1 �. 1 1 1 • � �� ' 1 1 1, �/ i 1 1.
1 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=7 (100.0�) RIGHT COUN1=0 (0.0�)
.
. , . �
------------------�-----------------,`-----------------�------------------: -----------------�-----------------
. +
:
.
� . . � �
� � """�"' _"""""""
""""'""""""t""""""""'"'"i"""'"""""""'�"""""""""' �
000 -4000 -2000 0 �n�oo 4o�a� fin
DEVIATION FROM C�N1ER OF GATE (ff
��
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - Sta Paul International Airport
August 1996
�_
�
-4
5863 ..e Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
4 ..a Carrier ,�et Departure - Early �rnout ( .1 %
(North Side B�fore Three 1Vliles)
4 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=3 (75.0%) RIGHT COUNT=1 (25.0�)
DEVIATtON FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl)
•J•I
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Sate!lite Programs i
, . ,_
Metropolitan Airports Commission
1Vl�nneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
5863 ... Total 11I., and 11R Car�ier Jet Departures
522 ... Carrier Jet Departures 8.9 °Io
South of Corridor (South of 29I. I..ocalizer)
�:
�_
�
-6
--
522 TRACKS CROSSED P—GATE
LEFT COUNT=516 (98.9�) RIGNT COUNT=6 (+.1�)
;o
..;
o . , .
:.
. ; , � ;
. , � � --------------
� -------------------- --
----------= ------------------------------e
--�o; . :
� ;.r. . ,
•�.i : o e
� o '
•��� o` t •e y ,e e . •
�
�, w� �e . � ♦ ' '
� ,
• � � • --1• .
. � s �
,
,�• i • � ' ----------------
� ' ' •----------�-
�� o '------------- � --�------------------�------
•----------- •'°ti o -� .
.; •
e •e
:� M �
O`o� •°•'� e • �
O +�•
� �
� .
� • � . .
O • ' �
•. � 0 o i � � ' .
� � �������������i����������������� �������������������r�����������������
..______.___0__..T_________________�_.__
"-'---'---'---'- -'---'---"-'--''' ----'--'------- --"---"'--'--- -----'-'--'--- ---"----'---'--"
I
nnn —4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl
PaQe 6 Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs
Metropotitan Airports Commission ,
�. '
1Vlanneapoli� - Sta Paul International A,irport _
__
A ugust 1996
5863 ... Total 11L and 11IZ Carriea� Jet lDepariures
IS .e. Carrier Jet Departures - Early T�urnout 0.3%J
(South Side Before Three Miles)
�
�
�
�r
�
15 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=12 (80.0�) RIGHT COUVT=3 (20.0�)
� DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
�
('
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7
Metropolitan Airpor[s Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate F'enetration Analysis
IVli.nneapolis - Ste Paul International Airport
A,ugust 1996
, � • . , 1.r. . � � � ��
. . .
. �, : : . : : :�: . � : r. . _.. . : � � .
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
�
- Metropolitan Airports Commission _
Il�I�r�neapolis m St. P'aul �nternational Ai�-port
August 1996
:� � . . � ' • . �.,�, .
.
,, , . . 1.�, . •,
' i � � �� ' � � �' � , .
66 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
� EFT COUNT=62 (93.9�) � RIGHT COUNT=4 (6.1%�
�
-6
DEVIATION FROM CENTF� OF GATE (ff)
���
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9
P.4etropo4itan Airports Commission '
.IVlinneapolis - St. P'aul International Airport
August 1996
�_
�
5863 ... Total 111L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
15 ... Carrier Jet De�artures - Early �'urnout 0.3 °Io
(South Side Before '�'hree IVliles)
15 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LFrT COUNT=12 (80.0%) RIGHT COUNT=3 (20.0�)
�
DEVIATION FRO�M CENTER OF GATE (fl)
Page !0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
, . . •
C
��
�
�
�����as�ro��r�e���t�,t��ot��,�e'e�e�e�:�'����„��0is'�tt����'�'at�eo'ett,e�t'
NOVEMBER 1996
� ����� ISSUE 3 5
..� �
:
�.
� .�raLl.�A� �.�.�.�T.riv�s
.
. �
; � � �
f�om the staff of WI)SCO
hTorrday Hours:
WDSCO offices will be closed
I1/28/96 and 11/29/96;
X2/24/96 at 12:OUp.m.
12/2S/96 and X/1/97
"""e�,�'�1"'1""""�' "��" "�'1f0"1'B '� '��A '� "�'���'���"
�' ' i ; �':
� ;.
■
Phase V will tentatively include the acquisition and
relocatiori of tenants and businesses located along
66th Street South. An open house sponsored by
MAC and WDSCO is in the process of being
planned for mid to .late January. WDSCO will
- provide an. overview of the '' acquisition and
�__?elocation process for landlords and business
owners. There will also be an overview of the
relocation process for the tenants residing in these
buildings, and WDSCO staff �will be available for
questions. The City of Richfield witl provide
information and material regarding the Rediscover
Richfield program. Furthur information on this open
house will be detailed in upcoming Buyout Updates.
Information that will be reviewed at the open house
is furthur detailed in the business and tenant
brochure which will be provided to a11
tenants/business owners at their initial interview
with WDSCO. There will also be a time line graph
given at tlie initial interview which will assist
tenants throngh the entire process.
*
��, , , �
. � � �: . �
Due to the near completion of a11 Phase N offer
meetings, acquisition closings and relocaxion
ctosings, ;this November issue of the Buyout Update
will be tlie, last issue to report the status of these
areas. .
Offer Undate: -
Offer meetings for Phase N are nearing
completion. As of November 2.1, 1996, 57 offers
have been presented to homeowners, with 48
homeowners accepting their offers. The offer
process is now 95% complete. To date, 8Q% of the
Phase IV homeowners have accepted their written
offers.
Acauisition Closin�s:
'The acqwisition closing process is also nearing
cornpletion with 42 I'hase IV closings now
completed. As of November 21, 1996, the
acquisition closing process is 70% complete for
Phase N.
Relocation Closings:
As of November 21, 1996, 31 homeowners have
closed on their relocation homes, with 22 Phase N
homes now vacated.
* �
) The Part 150 Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and W.D.
�" Schock Company, Inc., containing information on the MSP Land Acquisition and Relocation
Projects.
I � , 1 ` � � ♦
1 !,� �
Vacating durinE winter months:
Due to the fact that we have many homeowners
vacating over the winter months, we would like to
remind a11 homeowners that it is necessary to leave
the utilities on through the date of your final walk-
through. This includes gas anc� electric, enahling the
furnace to be left on until your final walk-through
has been done. T'his time of year, it does not take
very long for pipes to freeze and break if the heat
has been turned off in a home. Remembei, the
homeowner will be held resnonsible £or any clamagP
that occurs to the property between the acquisition
closing and the �na1 walk-through. If you have
moved out of the home prior to your walk-through,
please turn down your furnace, but do not turn it
off. The date of the final walk-through is the date
that should be used for utility disconnection; when
the appointment for the walk-through is made,
WDSCO schedules a property management team to
do winterizing procedures. To schedule your final
walk-through, please contact Scott with WDSCO at
724-8898.
Removal of Debris from homes:
Please make sure that before you schedule your final
walk-through, you have a11 debris removed from the
premises, including the garage and yard.
W.D. SCHOCK C011�ANY, INC.
�� 5844 28TS AVENUE SOUTH
1V�INNEAPOLIS, MN 55417
(612}724-8898
(800)260-7062
Dumpsters are available on Tussdays, Thursdays and
the lst and 3rd Saturdays of the month through
WDSCO. Please contact Scott a minimum of one
day in advance of the date you wish to use the
dumpsters. The dumpster is made available for
homeowners that have unwanted debris in the home
which is acquired by MAC. The dumpster is not
provided for homeovcmers to bring debris or
construction material from their relocation home..
Personai Pronertv listed on Purchase Agreement:
Any items that are listed on the purchase agreement
to be taken must be removed by the date of the final
walk-through. If the homeowner has decided there
are certain items that they wil� not be taking, it is
aeceptable to leave these at the property; however,
the homeowner may not return after the final walk-
through has,been done to take those items. If there
are appliances in the home that aze not in workin� '
order, please do not bring them to the dumpster; �
they may be left in the home. If you decide to
leave a garage cloor opener, please leave the
transmitter(s) for the future buyers.
���,-frs �;sT
��.
'�t- '1k '�' T� �r ,r—�. �ne...:
�'' ='�""'" Fs8S�1 � r �
����t.��o32�'�0�� 2s ��;
t'J � f? � �+lNNNEHf•QLi5 P9N �� 4 ��
Tom Lawell
1101 �Vic�oria Curve
Mendota Hgh�s, MN 55118
��`�3;iF�.t1�3I?Illti1�1�3f14�13t�:1
\ ,-^-`.,���� `�\�` `��,\ � \�� ��\�,� \\�.\�. � �► . � ��, . , ', y � : , � p �, .
`1 � \ � t
\ �� `�����'\��..� �\� �.� �� ��� ��� ~\\\ , � � � � t ! '
'`
��`.� "'�,,,\-��\\ \ �.... -\� �-.� \ �� �. �� ._ � �. �� �
\``��..' ����"�`�� �,�`` ��'�i� ���� � � �� . �� . ° 4 � � � + i
��"����"�::,. .��►'���� � � � \ \\�� � \\~•� 1� � � �r . � i� '� . !�d
��`�`-�. �����► \�`-\�,,, \��\~\�\� ��i�`�h� � � � ��, \ 4� 4 : � �/ .I
�1_`'�.,_.'"��i��`�►,\� `.� "-�\\'���\ . ��`�'� ���'� � �' .` ` ' , ' � , i
-��_ �—"� �► �� �,�� ��.\�� �.,�`.^, ��� ����. \ \� � ti ..� �... 1 , � � ��'
\ ,' : . ti�"\�\ \ \ ♦ i
� � P
���__,`.. \�`��`� \ \ ��\\\,\ � �; � � � \. \\.^ ` �". � , 'w t I
-_"„" `�\ �,"�1..'�C,� � ��� \ �...\`�� �\A� �.� �: � \ � + � �
""� "+?w_-.,,��'•,��►.� �`�.�1 � � �\ ♦� �,��� , \ a ) I
���"�► �d� ��ri\\\ ��: �► ��\� \ � � � R� . p � k� t � Y
w� h
"'.�,,,_,"'`�` ��. :r"'.n�► �� \�� �� � `� � � 7
� �..:�•�----..��_ \\�-'" `� � ` �..�` \ h � t +., i
i— � � ` '�\`��►\�\�,
I \ �,,,�,,.."""„�,��� ��� �1t�'\ O� +. . y 1 .�r
I—�` � ���`\�.�"�..\``�►\���\��� �n:+, ", �� �; . r� � �
� `` _V —`�`�1��.,�, y � "� � � �
;:�....._ .��'1►.�1i�. �►,'"� �; �u. a •� . `
`.,-."!�"_�_.I •'_ '\'^-����►.�r`,Rlii�, ��`��ih�f ��� �
(�- �"ti►�.. `�;�;!'' \ !��i' �.�` ��� � i�t � �.�
(� �_� \�,,;,ff'` � r.1' „` ��U��.,�i,�+•�g�•j'�. ' � . .
� , �r`� ` \ 1 ��/1; i i i 1, 4 .�::!A,y + , , ��
� f �---��`,�I,1�li� � i►� �i.��<I'j� h � s .: � �,
` I• ''r�`���r.�rn�1i�"i/�/IU;v � 1 � : , �, i � ..
'���,;���� ��ii��l�� IJ i. 1,/p /F
�� 4 i ����1 ��/ ���� � 7.
�'�t�Iij1r ►,, :� !�,►�,,! ,",�'�,: :' , ,
I ;'�/ i.�r.: �� /�/�I����� �%/�I �I •./ 'If
�� � 1`,�� � �( ��,� �/�/. /�.�.� �.1/ �.. ,
�\`_`►,' � , `� `��ii ��!// . /�//'' .. � ' . %'/� .p��/i
� �. ' (., /�-y�/ -� :�,.irr. ';
1 �, �- � �'
�`�\ � l� ,. . ✓t <
.,___ �c;,
c �'� i� `� �(� l��i\ :�
��� �\ ���� �� \ �
l�r� � � �`\' ;i. �� %'I `\ �•••' ..
� \�' ��n`�•7i���i� `'����%'� �.
�j -� ��`4�-'."�i'�'! :n��, .
~. �.� I.I;I'1'.`�/,y ,,' ��/1 \
\-.� ,��.i �r •���:+. :`j "� ��,��'/� � ` � �.
�I►. �' " 'i -- -nrr �i ` ��\� �
���'�►j'�/� ' �►""��'�� � I
f ''� ,'�� ` "�. I i'�I
� ���i� ��� ti. ..I . �r wI
`�'���-"'�� ���'���� /I� � �. `�
�I +� `'�'��i �% ' r� 1 .. . . \ `.
�"��". �`�\��'���i'�I i � %� l l�i! . .. . ♦ \ ��
,�A���� �"�'V• �� =��� /� � � ' / . � . ♦
I�+��,V►-� �IIi�M� �r"i' .i "� �'-f .
�i, /���'+�%!�/_'✓� i,..� . � .
��i,1�i ��n�..,/ .. .
/' ��� ..
�� ��! �'�i�'rii� i.�' �'-'" . . . .. . .
ii / ,i `..
��,/� jj/'�v /::r �- � � '
�i.i�' ,-�,�,�y�,�...%.� � � � � .� ' ':;
�/' ��:� �,''!'�"' � ''� `' ,
� ��� �� � .� } '!, �
�.1'��/� � .��i ` . s.i . �� . t ' .
.'�!'� . i !�'� � " �. '/- ` .: � �� • �" r r . . �
://� . �i� . .; � � r � �i„ � ;'•.� �,f .�j;. %; r .i ,re� �i� ` . '•
�� � r'' � .� � � ' i �� � � ; � t4 � � i ` ��: .
�: �t' /i •. ' , �. �I' i r�� � r : t � 1H � , a;. � \ ` �
��' ��� ���• �= �... ..�.. i� /i�i!f�.. ✓''.i/i � ... l` i� � � � ` : .. n
.,. _ . . _ . . . .. ...i,. .. i_ - / . . . . . .
Metropolitan Airports Commission "
I'�oposed l�o�-th Boundary Corrieior Gate Penetrat�on Analysis
Nlinr�eapolis - St. I'aul Interna��o�al Airport
�ctober 1996
�
�, �� , . . 1•�.; . , � � �,� .� (� .
� �� '� �� �,
�
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Sate(lite Programs
�
�
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
October 1996
, , � , , � • , . . �.,, .
Fi. • • � • 1 . . /�
/' 1 � fi11 ,' 1 �;1 • i_ _'_1 1' _'/::; . i-i._.::l..: '
68 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �
LEFT CO�NT=62 (91.2�) RIGHT CO�NT=6 (8.8�)
�,i
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3
Metropo(itan Airports Commission
___ 1VIinneapo�is - Sto F°aul Inte�natio�al Airport
Octolber 1996
��
�
�
�
�rr
—1C
4574 ... Toial 11L and 11I� Carrier Jet Departures
28 ... Carrier Jet I�eparture - Early Ti�.rnout (0.6 °Io
(North Side Before Three Miles)
28 TRACKS CROSSED P—GATE
�EFT COUNT=21 (75.0%) RIGHT COUNT=7 (25.0�)
.
, .
�---------------------------------------------------------------------------------�--------------------------
.
.
.
.
.
.
; .
. • . •
-------------------� ------;--------------- �
---------------------------------------�---------------
, s . -----------
• �• e
.� . .
. .
.,
.
.
,
------------------------------------------------------ �---------------------------� ------------
�""'"""""
�
�
"""'"""""""'"""' 1"""""""""""""1""""""""""""'"'t"""""""""""'"""'
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff�
Page 4 " Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
.,c
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�-
�
��
�
. � ,�. � � � ` � i , � , ` r �, '� , `
� �;�,. � �;��
� / •' . . ' . � .
1', .' 1 . ,
�� � . . �.�� . ' ,� ��
/ 1 il� 1 1 i 1 ' � � �, •
485
LEFT CO�NT=481
TRACKS
(99.2�)
CROSSED P-GATE
RIGHT COUNT=4 (0,8�)
:.
.�,
. � »
. . .
, ,
.. : � � .
. , �
. ,.. , , ,
�----------- ------_--------- � ,
.-----. .. ------------------------------------- �-----------------.-----------------
p., .
+,.'�: '° + ' • '
�• .
. .
• e .
. �•,�•• g • +
a •• .
� .r' • � .
a `� � •• ; °� • •
� '
� '
"-"-""-' o � -"'�'---' ' '
f - e"a--""�""'-"'-"- • "--"'----"�"----""'--'-" --""-"-----"
�` �eeo•�/ ;
�� e� • �
•e
��e • s
e ��e11 •e o
� +• o
• • q'
•o •
•s° •
� � � � �
a-'--' � "'---"'-""- --"'------"----�
"-----'-'--- »."-�'---""--'-i------'---------'-: -i' r"'----""------
s
� �
' � � i
""""""""'"i"""""""""J""""""""' J""""""""""""""""""�"""""""""
-4000 -2000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl
Page 6 " Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
C�
(�� �)
�_
�
Ntetropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
October 1996
4574 ... Total 11L and. 11R Carrier Jet Departures
19 ... Carrier Jet I)epartures - Early rnout 0.4%)
(South Side �efoa°e �'hree 1Vl�les)
19 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=10 (52.6%) RIGHT COUNT=9 (47.4�}
�
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
1"
Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission , ` ,
_. 1
_ Souihern �ound.ary Corricior Gate Peneiration At�alysis
IVlir�neapolis - St. Paul Iniernat�onal Airport
October 1996
(
1'. � , • '• 1•:�. . . � � i ��
. � � � � , , .
�
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
��
�
�
a
6
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul �nternational Airport
October 1996
4574 ... Total lli, and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
74 ... Carrier Jet Departures (1.6%
5° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L I.ocalizer)
74 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT CO�NT=70 (94.6%) RIGNT CO�NT=4 (5.4�)
�.r
�
; l
DEUTAlION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9
Metropotitan Airports Commission �-
l�inneapoli� m St. Paul Internationai t�i�po��
October 1996
4574 .a. Total 11I, and 11IZ Carrier Jet I)epartures �
19 ... Carrier Jei I)epartures - Early Turnout 0.4%
(Sou�h S�d.e �efore Three Miles)
�
�
O
O
O
�
t.�
�
�
�
�- p
J �'j
'=C O
N
19 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LF FT COUNT=10 (52.6%) RIGNT COUN1=9 (47.4�)
DEVIATIOv FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft
Page l0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
��rrom: Betty Ann Kane 8etty Ann Kane 8� Company Fax: 202-547-9598 0:57;23 1216/96 Page 2 of 4 Log;146
To: Charles E, Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights Fa�c 1-612-452-9940
National organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment
1225 19th Street, N. W, * Suite 400 * Ulashington, D. C. 20036
(202) 452-1487 telephone * (202) 331-1118 fax
To: NO=SE Board Members
Member City and County Representatives and Staff
From: Betty Ann Kane
Executive Di=ector
Date: November 7, 1996
Subject: NOISE BOARD MEETING DURING NATIONAL LEAGUE OF GITIES
MEETING IN SAN ANTONIO
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996
ia: 4s a. r�. - i: 3o P. M.
As is our practice, the Saard of the National Organization
to =nsure a sound-controlled Environment (NOISE) will meet during
the National League of Cities annual meeting which is being held
this year in San A.ntonio, Texas, f=om December 6-10, 1996, The
NOISE 8oard meeting is scheduled for MONDAY, DECE�ER 9 from
10: 45 a, m. to 1: 30 p, m. in the SALON F ROOM of the Marriott
Riverwalk. Hotel,
'� The meeting is scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the
NLC morning general session. Luneh will be served, The Marriott
Riverwalk Hotel is directly across the street from the convention
Center where the general session will be held. We have scheduled
the Board meeting during the regular NLC conference so that other
cities that are interested in NO=SE can attend,
In addition to conducting ou= regular N, o. I, S. E. Board
business, the December 9 meeting is an excellent opportunity to
introduce NO=SE to ather cities that could bencfit from
membership. I encourage you to identify these potential cities
in your area and try to bring a representative of that city with
you to th� Board meeting, In addition, I will be available
thtoughout the NLC conference to meet with potential members.
Just let me l�now,
We have also scheduled the 8oard meeting time so that Board
members can be free to participate in the NLC steering committee
meetings, Two NLC Committees will be considering policy related
to airpo=t noise during their meetings on Saturday, December 7--
the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee and the
Transportation and Communications Committee. NO2SE has been
wo=kittg with these committees, I will be sending you copies of
the progosed policy changes and details of these committee
meeting times and locations.
' 1
� .
{,
From: 8etty Ann Kane Betty Ann Kane & Company F�uc; 202-547-9598 • 0:57:24 12/6/96 Page 3 of 4 Log:148
To: Charles E. Mertensotto City of Mendota'Heiyhts Fax: 1-612-452-8940
The agenda for the Board meeting on Monday, December 9 will C
include:
* an update on recently passed federal legislation affecting
airport noise
* a review of plans for the annual noise conference next
s ummer.
* consideration of location of the 1998 annual meeting
,_----�-�.....�.- -- __.___---_.__._..._.__._,„�_�
* N0=-SE membershiP.--a-sti othe= business ma - -
Pur'suant to the decision of the Board at our July meeting; T�am
�leased to report that the dates for the 1997 annual meeting have
been set. Mark your calendar now for
TBE ANNUAL AVIATION NO=SE SYMPOSIUM AND NOISE MEETING
JULY 23 (beginning Wednesday evening) through saturday morning
JULY 26 in �,,,
EAGAN� MiNNESOTA _�,,,,.,.,._..-,�^-""���
NOI�E`-Pres-i�le-rr��--Tom--Ega�nn; �ayor af Eagan, is already working with
his convention bureau and other Minneapolis area cities to make
this an exciting and memorable conference.
If your city is interested in hosting the 1998 conference,
please let me know. we plan to get two years ahead in our •
planning, so that we can attract as wide an attendance as= (,
possible at ou= annual meetings,
The Board will also meet during the National League of
Cities meeting in Washington, D. C. in March, 1997. The exact
date will be decided at our December Board meeting.
A reply fo=m for the December 9 Board meeting in San Antonio
is enclosed. Please fax it back to me at (202) 331-1118 so that
w� can plan on numbers for lunch and materials. Also please call
me at (202) 452-1487 if you hane any questions or need any other
information, You will receive a full Board meeting package in
the mail before the end of November.
�
= look forward to seeing you in san Antonio.
From; 8etty Ann Kane Betty Ann Kane & Company F�uc; 202-547-9598 0;57:24 12/6/96 Page 4 of 4 Log:146
To: Charles E, Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights Fax: 1-612-452-8940 �
Natioaal Organization to Insuse a Sound-Controlled Enviroament
PARTICIPATION IN December 9, 1996 NOISE BOARD MEETZNG
Please return this form to Betty Ann Kane, Executive Director,
at (202) 547-9598 until noontime EST Friday, December 6 or
at (210) 223-1302 the Holiday Inn Rinerwalk in San Antonio
Jurisdiction
Saard Member Representative
Phone F
The NO=SE Board will meet on Monday, December 9 at f=om 10:45
a. m, to l: 3Q p. m, in Room Salon F of the Marriott Riverwalk
Hotel, dircctly across from the Convention Center, San Antonio,
Texas. ,
We WILL WILL NOT attend the meeting.
� Name of person( s) attending
I will be at the Hotel in San
A.ntonio (in case we need to cantact you)
I will bring the f ollowing potential member(s) ta the Board
meeting
I would lik� to have the f ollowing potcntial members
contacted
We are interested in hosting the 1998 NOISE conference.
Please contact me about how to make a proposal,
THANK YOUS
�
AGENDA
ItEGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN C�TTI' CO�TNCIi. CHAMBERS
� December 10, 1996
7a00 Pel�ia
I. ROI.I. CALL AND ADOI'TION OF AGENDA
II. APPItOVAL OF MI�TUTIES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. 199i Legislative Program
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. UTHEI2 BUSINESS
VII. WURKSHOP REPORT
__
' ) �III. STAFIF REPORT
- ' A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. MASAC Meeting of December 3
C. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
D. Commission Terms and Appointments
IX. INFORMATIVE
X. FUTU�tE AGENDA
XI. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 14
NEX�' COMIVdISSION WORKS�-IOP - 7:00 p.m. 'I'hursday, dDecember 19
IVEXT NiASAC MEE�'ING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, January 28
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96
hours. �f a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide
such aid.
C�
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION
MINUTES
October 15, 1996
The Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition meeting was called to order at
7:45 a.m. by Sunfish Lake City Administrator Glenda Spiotta in the Fireside Room at St.
Anne's Episcopal Church, Sunfish Lake, MN. The following representa.tives were present:
Amy Briesacher, Inver Crrove Heights, Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights and Ellsworth
Stein, Mendota. Heights.
AGENDA APPROVAL
The Agenda was approved by consensus.
. , ..�. � � . � . .
Inver Grove Heights represen+�.ative Amy Breisacher reported that the MSP Noise Mitigatian
Plan Fina1 Recommendations were available and scheduled for discussion on October 17,
1996. There was discussion of the dramatic population increases in northem Dakota County
which are now impacted by a.irport noise. Ellsworth Stein indicated that Mendota Heights is
continuing efforts to more accurately identify properties which are impacted by airport noise.
Comments were added that simultaneous operations will be possible with scheduled runway
imprcvements and how there would be greater separation between flight paths �.Thich weuld
disperse more air tr�c.
T'he MSP Noise Mitigation Plan was reviewed. It was reported that the Bloomington Mayor
had written cornrnents against the use of Runway 4/22 noting issues of a. fairness, b. legality,
c. maximum commitment. Will Eginton noted that histarically 4/22 was a major use runway
in the 1970's but aiso that then there were many less flights, as compared to current daily use
of 1300 flights. .
Mendota Heights took the MSP Noise Mitigation Plan to tli�ia� lc�c�1 A.irports Relations
Committee last week; there were no strong objections. Emphasis was placed on use of real
data and not so much upon computer modeling. A1so, to increase use of the portable
.ANOMS monitors, as well as increasing the number of permanent monitor locations.
Further discussion continued on noise program benefits. Modeling for noise program
benefits should include the following factors: peak of noise events, b. duration of noise
heazd, and c. number of flights between 4:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m..
These factors result in higher proportion of noise over time.
It was a consensus that using Runway 4/22 would likely have beneficial noise mitigation
results but skepticism was expressed about effective runway use implementation.
c-
`
�
O
�
C
O
U
u�
�
J
Z
N � �
� J �
u Z CT
� � �
�
"j� �
.�
�
`O � �
� J J
� � �
�
)
�
--�-•--....
c�
o ��
� �
O � �
�
U
,�-,,,,+ t� O
.S y
0 � O �
� o � o
O+-~� � v�i
.,
'� �C
� � O '.�i
. � � U O
"d O �
� � b O
O
� °' 'G .�
N � '� �
.G� � � �
� � O V
o .� V �
� � �
.� � a �
�io '
U �'
si,�'�
� � � �
�
� °� � •�
.�-� •� •� �
.. � "r3
N � �
� O �
'°Q .� .�
� ,� �
O � bA
Z �, .�
o ° U o
v] � N ^
�Co��°,
�
N
�D
�
C/1
�
�
W
H
W
a
O
V
I
�
'.. ..� . � � •:':�.. . ..: � � .. � .,., ... .` 1
: .. .. . � : . . , . . . � . . ..
I
� � � � �
o ,o ,o ,o ,o
� � � � �
� � � b �
.� .� .� ...
.� .� .� .� �
������
� � � � �
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
O � M M M
vi d� N N N
69 69 b4 C�} C�}
O O O O O
U U U V U
� � � � �
U .C�.l V v U
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
v�0000
N O �'i v'i o0
NN�--���
v�v6�9 �
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
V1 .-� M M M
00 d' h l� O
N N �-+ � N
&4 E!-} 6�! ff3 C�}
�
�
ti
�
b
a
�
*
� �����
'�'� �t v� o �r o
�O �s��t��
�NM�t'�n�0
� CT O� a1 01
G1 O� O� 01 01
�����
�
� � H
� �
� o � �
� � �
� � � �
'b I� Q .�i
O � O �
� � c�,� O
o' � ��., a�
� `� O ,�
.��V �
� �
� � o b
a] � '� �
� .� � �
� � � �
O � U �
� � � �
� �� �
�
U °'
Q., � 'v
� � � �
� � �
� ��j � ..N.+
� •� •� �
N � � �
� � O �
.a '°c .� �
� 00 ?' �
O N � bA
z �, .�
o�
O � v �
V� a-+ N ^'
�C o ��°,
C�
N
�
rd
r
�
�
x
W
H
W
a
O
V
.-. .-� .-. .-. .-,
0 0 0 0 0
� � � � �
� � � � �
A .� .� ,s� ��
� � � � �
Q � 0 Q �
0 0 0 0 0
O �--� M M M
vi d� N N N
b9 6F3 f!S 69 69
O O O O O
U U U U U
� � � �
r�n c�i] in �v1 m
O O O O O
o � � � v
0 0 0 0 0
�n0000
N O �'i �'i o0
N N �+ �--� �--�
f�} 69 Ef-} 69 b�}
�..iv���
00000
0 0 0 0 0
� � M M M
N N � � N
� � � � �
W ++
a �
� � � � � �
,� � cT V: �n t' :
�i U ��t �'i O d' O
b � � � � � �
� �''
�
V
�
�
�
W
O
�
v O O O O O
�xxxxx
s.rn�r000
� N � � N
�
� N M d' � �
�I � � � � �
�����
NLegal Department
i ,�
�
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
VIA TELECOPY
Kevin Batchelder, City Manager, City of Mendota
Heights
Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel (726-8178)
Runway Contracts
December 9, 1996
Attached is a revised draft of the proposed runway contract for
your review. As I indicated, today, unfortunately, we are not in
a position to propose a precise methodology for the definition of
"affected property owners." Hopefully Nigel and Evan Futterman
from HNTB will be able to set out a definitive methodology within
the next couple of days.
Please give me a call with any questions.
cc: Negotiating Team Members (Via Telecopy)
kb.mem
0
�
F�OM OPPENHEIMEA (MPLS)
12/09I96 Dr�f
.I- Rec'rtals.
(MONI 12. 09' 96 10: l5/ST. 10:05/N0. 3560377903 P 3/5
CONT.RA.CT ��R,T.AINIl�tG '��O LIlVLIT'S
ON �O�tSTRU�'ZTOl'�T O� �.
THTRD P�t.ALLP_L RI7NWAY
1. The ,I4Tiznaesota Legislature, at its 1996 session, bas �ena�ted La.ws of Nlixuateso'ta,
Chapter 464, Art. 3, SeG. LO (hereina#�er�`the Runway 3iatute"�, which a�zends
Minaesoia �tatutes 1994, Sec. 4�3.6fl8 io require the Metzopolitan ,Airports Comm�ission
(herez�aft�r "th.e Comra,ission" or "MA,C"� to eo.t.�r into certain co�acts vu�� °`�ected,
ci�fies."
2. The Ranway St�tute dcSnes "affected city" as being any city �at would
ex�erien�ce an incxease in the area located. witba.n: the 6a Ldu noise coutaur as a z�stil,t of
operati,ons using a third �arallel. rtmway cortstru,cted at the Twin Cifiies Internatioaal
A�sport (hereina.fter ``the .1�irport'�. �
3. The Cammissivn has detecmin,ed th.at the City of �endofia. H,eights (�.ex�inaftez-
"th� Cft�'� is an af£ected c�ry wit�i.0 the meaning of the Rt#mway Statttt,e.
4. Th� Commission and the City hare met an,ci negoriated iu good faith coraceini.n,g
� the terms and condi�ions oF the contrarct xequired by the Run.w�y Staiute, aud I�ave anived
`___.; at an agreement (herein.after "tb.e .A.greemenY� wbich both pazties dc�ire tv s�t �forfh iu
wc�iting.
II. D�f'mfi6ious.
1. '�'he term. "thi�cd parallel z�tuzway" sha11 meam any runtway useci �oz ttre azrival or
departure o� air traffic at the A�itpozt constructed to the n,orth of and geuerally pazallel to
the e�isting paz�allel runways kn�owz�. as 29U11R aad Z9R/11L,
2. The te�m "consiruct" sha11 mean �hysical cons�riqn a�,d acti,ons preliminary to
construction, imc�udin� la�,d acquisition, inclus�ton of funds for co�siructio�, in ihe capital
impraver�eirt pm�ra�ao.� budget or solicita.pion of lrids for pe�ormaace of physical
cflnstruction �rovi �' ha the f.erm shall no� include plann.ing activity. The term.
"constzuct" sha1l nvt in.cl�.d.e la.ad acquisitions by the Commission rovhich inclu.de as a
restricrive cowenant �n the deed af conveyance that the acquired.laa,d �a11 not be used for
nutway �urposes duiiz�g the pe�i�d for which Yhi.s A.gteement is e$�ti,ve, �ovided. t at
such restrictive covenant s}iall ex�mssty run for the ben�fit of affected pzYrpetty oyQnecs
axrd th� City.
3. The term "a�proval" s�aU me�. a legally binding assent veewrring thx�augh a�tioz� �
i� l �
by which the city legally binds itseif.
��FRfi�M.OPPENHEIMEA (MPLS) (MON) 12. 09' 96 10: ( 5/ST, 10:05/N0. 3560377903 P 4/5
�, .
4. The tezzn "affecfed property owner" m,earts azzy owner vf real proPezty wiuch
' propezl.y is wifi�in. that part of tk�e City wlu.ch is witbin the 60 Ldn noise cantour and
which would experienee an incxease in n9ise p,zeater ihan as a res�.If og
o�era�ions on a tbird pazallel runway, as indicafed iu the diagram attached as Exhibzt A.
iI� 7Cerms
1. The �ezm o� #�iis .A�gre�ent sl�ea,l b� Srum the daie aF approval by �3ze City ro
Dece�ber 31, 2020, sv.bject to fihe prauzsioas o£this paragraph. Qn. 7amza,ry 1 of 202X,
January of 203 �, and Tan.uaiy 10�2041, thxs agreeme�at sbiall be automatically �eaewed for
au ad�iiionsl teu year te.�n waless bofh the City �nd the Commission agree, at aay tvaze
�ri.or io the expiratiou afthe previ.ous te�m., that ihe agreemeat shall tezminate without
sir��, renewal. Commettcin.g on January 1, 202 �, this Agteeme�t and any renewals
thereo�may be terminated by s�taxutoiy enactment wh�ch contains an e.�press findiao,g by
tb:e 1'Nlinnesoea Legisla�tttre that, in its judgw�,en.t taldug into accvunt ihe wet£�rre of the
Sfafe of �innesota, there is no prudeni or F�easible al�na�ive �a construction of a thi�d
parallei zz�.ww,way.
2- Lru�ix�g the perivd for wbich tbis Agreem.e� is e$ective, the Courmissi.o�a
�mxnises �haC it sha117o�ot, with�outi the agpmval o�the City, eonstxu�,�t a t]�ird p�al�el
runway, The Commission promises that pz�or to Decembet 31, 2020, it sh.all. not
a;k�rm,at,ivel.y acLvocaYe consfxv.ctipn o£a thitd para,Ilel runway, pravided ��t rzofhing iu
this Agree�ment skall pr�event the Conuriission from respondia,g to requests for
in�ormati.om and adv�ce made by the legislati.ve or exec�ati,ve bxaach�,s of state
ganernmeat, or their eonstit�.e�at parts or designees.
3• Duri.ng the pe�iod fo�- wbich this hgreem�eat is effective, the City promsses that it
sh.all take no actian to oppose tb,e pianning and construction of a rtorth $ou1� Ruuway, as
such runovay is d.escri,bed in th,e Air�rort's ZOXO lang-tc�rn cou�prehezzsiv� �lan, the
im.plementaL7,on of which. is au�hvrized by La,�rs of ntiu�uLesoxa,1996, C�. 464, ,t4rt_ 3,
Subd. 24. Wzthout limit3ng the generality vf the fvrego3r��, the City ag�ees: `
,
a) � its a��mva.l af this Agreement constttutes a deelaz�ation of the City
a�dorsing �}ae con,sfructivn o� the al�ov�-described. N'orth Soufih �tunway; and
b) �t sha11 not institute, be a party.to, fivaaci�ly con.i�t"bute to ar in any ot'b.cr
m,anner su.pport any legislation or 1ega1 proceerlin,�s (whether judici.al,
a,3mit�oisdraixve or ather) wiuch ha�e as a gval or an e�fect the delay ox prevent�,on
of construction of �%Ze abvv�,escribed Nort� So�uth n�mvay, ��i� ���t
limitation, p�oceedings asserting rights undex envizor�menfal Iaws or regulations.
4• Zt is i�nded by the Commisszon. eud the City tiasat, during the period for which
i, � f�is A�reement is effective, �he affectcd pr.operiy o�vuer� shall have third P�Y
-' beneficiary rigltts to en�'o�t�ce this Agreemeatt in ihe eveni fhat a state law changes,
supezsedes or invalidaies this Agreement or iP a state 1a.w autb.orizes vr enables th�
FA:OM OPPENHEIMER (MPLS) (MON� (2. 09' 98 10:15/ST. 10:05/N0. 35603�7903 P 5/5
., .
�
Commission to cor.�,viruct a thi�cd pazallel ni,nwa.y without approval of tl�e City. It is
� farther agreed. that tbis right of eaforcezznen,t sha11 incLw�.e that ri.ght tv seek specific
enfozeemeut and injutictive relief. Sai.d thi�d paxt.y bemeficiary righfis sha11 cease u�on t'h.e
expiration o� this agreement or zfs �c�m�ination pi.rrsuant to paragraph �II. 1. of �.is
Agreement,
5. Tbis �greemeni co�itutes the entire und�erstanding of t�ae parties hereto and sball
not be sulrjeGt to any alt�a�i.ou, su�ple�oa�ent or repeal e�cept as agrned. to in writing. "Z'his
Agreemeat shal� be binding u�on the parG.es aad their successors and assi�s.
6. This Agreeznent sha,ll be biading upon and inure t�o the beaefit of any other
� affecfed ciiy which, by formal action, approves its terms �nd natifies the Co�sszon of
sa.id approval} rfrovided har suck a.ffected. city �,ves such notice to the Couimission on oi
. , bef.ore July i, 1997. �tottung isz rius t�g.eemeat sbaii �sreveaf the Commission and
affecied cities otiher t�au the Cx�y from xeachin,g a sepazaie agreeat.ent with s�parate
t�rms.
1TC2 Z01382 v05 1?l7/86
� Sh
]
� '
i i . i
j F.
� � •1
� 4
� " +�'��..�;:°•' .
�� •.~`� '
�
T:after Ntinnesota. said `no' to a new airport, Noi�h:west
'•7•-;'';(;^:: . . , .'. _., Er .�,�:ew
1.i:�;,,egpansion� of Detroit.Nletr�n�lit�n Airnnrti��`�i�l
f t .
-- '_ _ — _: _ —J. :. , .�%ic3���.��F��
By Tony Kennedy and Mike Meyers
St�r Tribune Stafj°YVriters
fter successfullv opposing a
new, bigger and more costly air-
port for Nlinneapolis-St. Paul,
Northwest Airlines is guiding the
construction of a new �786 mil-
lion airport terminal in Detroit.
Detroit Metropolitan Airpon's 51.6 biliion
_ expansion plan — one of the biggest in the
United States — will deliver more capacity
:. for passenger traffic and international cargo
��' �.-y :� than the Twin Cities has now or will have for
years to come.
. The modernization will cement Detroit as
Northwest's chief gateway to China, Japan
_, and other Pacific Rim countries, putting
�"- Michigan in a premier position to exploit
rapid gains in commerce between the
United States and the world's fastest grow-
ing economies as it enters ihe 21st century.
A4eanwhile, the Twin Cities wilt enter the
next millennium with a comparatively
smaller airport positioned for slower growth.
Both will continue to be dominated by
Northwest. Minneapolis-St. Paul plans �l.l
billion in improvements over the next 13
years, but Detroit Metro will grow at a faster
rate and have a cleaz edge in capacity.
Northwest's reason for ,emphasizing
Detroit is simple: The Detroit metropolitan
area is the nation's eighth-largest and
it shares the Eastern time zone with many
densely populated cities.
Turn to NWA on A24 for.
— How airlines serving Detroit and Min-
neapolis-St. Paul campare.
Also on AZS:
— Tlze Metropolitan Airports Commission's
role.
Also on A26:
— NWA's Den ver operation reponedly is
under investigation by the FAA.
`'�:y.�. �«.
Airli�.es
�` �r�.n:.. �
}"'r``"' .�.: 'f'� .,_h �• .
'.Y•s:^...�n"�'�:- +
;t.:.,':_ry,s .{T" r' t+.'•
�. k •�
' r4` :-_ :
�_':L�lj..'1:1i;.i' _ ,
i^ � ' �
..:1 �. ��i`..4. _ .
ti
- - �;�? � . t � t—
Expand�ng at a differen# pace
The Metropolitan Airports Commission plans to spend about $11 bii-
lion to improve the Twin Cities' airport over the next 13 years. In
Detroit, the prime elements of the $1.6 billion expansion should be
operational nearly a decade sooner, in 2001.
I '� � -� •�-f �.
�- .� � .�. � . .�. � .
.,
> NWA daTy departures: 350
> NWA % of total traffic: 76°,6
y qirport acreage: 3200
> Totai gates: 67
� Intemationa! gates: 6 (c)
> NWA airport employees: 9,181(aj
? C�go tons: 365,000 (b)
� Runways: 2 parallel, i cross•wind
r NWA cost per enptanemer�
$275 (1994), $310 (1995) I
......... .. .. . . .... ........ Proj�
> Expansion expen�ture:
$11 biilion by 2010
> Total gates: 77 by 2008,10 new
> irttetnational gates: 6 (c)
> Runways: Add north�south
runway by 2003
� NWA dairy deparhrres: 380
> NWA % 01 total traffic: 72%
( > Airport acre�e: 6.700
! > Total gate� 93
> Itrtemat3onai gates: 6
> NWA airport employees: 3,112 (a)
� Cargo tons: 243,563 (b)
r Runways: 3 paraliel, 2 cross-wind
> IYWA cost per enplanemett�
$5.75 (1994), NA (1995)
�cted ..._ _........ ....� ......................
> Expanston expendihue:
$1.6 biliion by 2001
> Tota1 gate� 95 by 2001(74 new)
> Irrternatlortal gates;
10 new by 2001(c)
> Runways: Add 4th parailel runway by
2001
(a) As of 12/31/95 (b)1995 (c) Swing gates for domestic, international use
. ...... ....... .. ..... .. . .... ........ . . .....................................:........... ...
NWA international
flights...
Weekiy as of 1Cy�96
Detrat 77
...and irrternational
passenge�s
Carried in 1995, in millions
Minneapolis-
� SL Paul
:a3a
Detrat 2.73
Source: Northwest Airiines, Detroit MeVo Airport, Metropoiitan Airports Commission
%
t
C
�
m
Q7
N
m
�
V
w
A
4
A
z
�
�
�
_ �,..� .
� ,, .... „ti G � .. ._ ,- �,:. ... y . i � : m '� •-. �,3 � . . . �, ,O � a . C ^ .� }� � _ � V '�T ' "OA �" ^�� � � 5
�c�"S V, �omb•r�'i�o,�r.'�.� �'�o«�•[ on�.5 .'dN --u�?,iD���=��°� $5-(��cro��`°� P: ' 'y m�'�-r�-=�}+� `��
..l: Q: ' '��+ O .1] � N Ll. -: _.. Cti S "J E � � N %+ 'J M G. p� :
i m" V iJ �. ,d _ y N N V�C �-� O r1L "J+ CL �» y.. �, .� Q� ^� �� y... y.� �� ,r_7 O C C Wb .F. I �„ N
� '~ •- E � •... o � �, r� >.._ �n
'� v� '� �°'u3>,o� A „�o� �._...�- � m.. n,v_ ea... . C v"�aua cmv_
ar � a, "� a. a 8 a, A_a .� 'b [ � o a�'5 �; .. [ a, g-cy '° � c.� G Q n. a� m-� v �� o �_ o a, c: -
' C E''.' O C y G' 7 N C • �... •^C y,^ . c�a "' aCf .. .p tO ta �j G� � C�C �,�. �[. O �� O'� � C C� C O u�.0 e7 — C:
In d o" N 4n R1 N�p �,O y=� 0 LNi " lV C C. G N C.-. � u C G Jf CJ �C � ,(�. N �p = i.' R7 .�r � � V� A C 67 G N:
�� p,n pdp abL..� «+ � tq y�Z N� C OH � C�7�� N� � � y?[�7 N tC� G p N O��O.,,M O� y[ �O'C,i � 6�i� � CJ C i�.C'.�". c=
� A'y � yN w�� y y,,, �'C .d. N C •� � N C}i � L+, '� [�y � Od � � C�... . O U E� iC ty q� � O- [ u � iy in ,b ,fl «f O 6J N.� C� � p -:.
o aom� Y-��v � u3°�' `°�^ E n. C$u mou'-3...gv -�'>vd .c>,c V �on �-
�a.o� �.'c�'� a,°•3�vc-V �a�i=._,��oo-�o y��o_,� .cc7o3.c�a,•�,�'33o3ao,aoC�o[��c0==
� O•y W V N y W� ir' � G! i1 y r' � y m� t0 ,C ^�n ��•� Q. Q �� O T U A �� O 01 S'w y a [j. ��4 � j'' u Q. � x � M V ^�
y � 00 esf C t0 0 C�'. G N� � � G �• >, C�" � � n C7 cv � C Z o'C ?• u T7 pp(.7 p a) .. �' y�" .... �y ..» O � TJ =_
�;c°,a y°a=[c��6°'°ooc,,;, a�.��m,�'^�No� r�3�ac°�d°:°°:�'N�.�co.m°�z�'o�"o'n'uN�eF,c"cn,[,'�-
Va�;,,'�p �y50y0uC�." ..Q--��O�..y�•Zln�iy�"yd�C�.O "NC-y'���....a,4:.�.ON��mF'-'� �S��yC�..?;��nn�C='
� 6± C' O � Y N(�7 y U� � W� G'i =^^ z 0 i':1 I.�.r � • r'�. C'i r� N tti �O 'n Q e. L. V.L.+ G'i C' .� 4 4" � L fC „i' �
.o � V... .c b o o, m o,._ � c� ❑.� O� o m^' � m m �= o� 0 3 � -
�, ..G� x 3 a'w vno�3�o;, ..��m.�a�,:9E ��,..�+.�y.b�a�..o���u-c���G ��-
�w`"yOpO�y��,��a�O.G�a� •-Cw'7'iay��i40CCCy3y�Cma`�iWOm❑����'d�,OwCU3�Ov�_i�Cv��"7m`:
al N O._, t ,., .G tn "�"j � C �+ ?. C z N;n Gl C O= �r
�aC3. C•,,,� �I. U Ti F m �„ .... O �.. �.. v 4 y.. O O � V O -[ O �� V'} �� C � w.0 '
���� �� o. o� a, o o�y � H o d o o ; � x•� o ona, n,��'�' a... a ��^ 'm a, .� � E
n.�o.� au o u� v, �z �.c:= w��«.aZm �,:.. U e� onv, ao 3.....U... c c v, 3:-: >.o ..E- � Z v, u.e :
L+ �
t.i .� � Q � '� .O V ld �'J � W � � N ��" �
ti3q...7'� eoOVG^�yCuyC
.v mao.o mQ,mo��c:bNy[
3�-+�h O iy 3 ��,�� u C a� C,O
a" �`r °� � �¢ 'v y°A p, v'ti n'
3.�cE`AY°= �">>d?+an.°x.na;°;ci
� ov, v o�oF—v r�a.b�n.m
O C.:: N.0 A cJ.-7"' • � y
A
o" `° 3 �t u .o �.��
'�o o a�i�'o o ��°:y �� o n,3 a? o
��s��o ���a,,n. a��y�c�
a;
[N '""�;., �� ���.o3a.c>>
`°°»>�y�oa�csS �ad^ C'a.rcyO.�
,C o:, o� c.�'A u, �� �v v�i�c on� ::.�
-o � � �F y�� `�� �� p [•`� � °'
•d � d •� �y ...
:; H E 3a m H�.�-° > c� �� a�
u ° c'� u upi C w � `n � ° ° ° v � �'�
3� o c e° 'u u� o a u�C7 `" a�i -� o� � c.o�~.$ ~:? y°u:� � � 3 r
� tJ �= y y � N Gl .,,, y p�iy W N� G'.��+. 61 �`p t9 G r.7 G.... y•� � C
�CO3TOcA. :°�axi'°�=u ��c$R'�`°°=C: �C�a»v R�_
tn y O G.4+ ��IO�E'� N iw C� p„N �� N��' N Y+� y �, :.
M� C;n �"'., � ia'".�G� m p m.G � O 7 � m•^ � eJ a....�_-
C) �`� a. a�, � o a,� o�'c '�'•`= H o N C tC C O� ryJ � C`� c� y a� J o �>
..:n •�.,y... a uya.oa,'yw d m.., �.9c,❑y =
sy�.�y�a¢•y��c=���,.�bya��c.uy6=���°��u3� L=
�'� ;/7 � 3 I.� h O tA �' ���+ C C. •N p C?,,. 0 y,� O,,,� O-� ,,, C ttl �' y�,,. C �_
N C 91 Ci u fti tn y G.�r �.�. _� 'C � V 3 q� . N C
C .,+•❑=uv,.°�s�,$c$¢�°ou'� soYNo�°� �3i'-_=,p =3
o'_ °� '�� a-�.. c� -� a?�n °�; a� w a, 3 o xh E.� �
V`� =� ^��:.. OD�" Rf cJ N n> ��' 6i E O N:= ��, b>t v�i C r G C:7 t7 �_
G :,
?.� ��y���y C�� ow �,� k[ y Q.� a� N�'3 „�[�,�" �� � o`� yx_ _
"� J y.yy� 0 31 o p �+ C. C'p �.Nj U� � y� i.�. [.�.. F y 6�i � v G r? 6�i C,% n� r. •-
++����>•Qm,ri.ai,'�•.�•''L,'�.LGECOqy C�pOtOr �''�.r.'.�..:���=
� � � ❑=' �'.� ° = ° ° `^ °' �:C�� °' ? 5' c � � E a"i-� �`n.o a v:'� ey �' =
Z � r� a� aa•...a n.�a0 0 -
(d 67 bA N C C ' i. N O I u O O',,, S �� '� y O N O G=.,p•� , J`
v� L '... 6� vi `" G.:. ''O N 07 C y... � y : G O y O C��' .� ... 'C1 S= .
� v Cp��.., W•-'yGo�a�i� ���a� O ��•-u �•m~C �'�U 'O OL�.Ce��3ac�.�..a..ca -
� y.., .� 47 .7 .� C C,C 4 y =�,., _ 7 G� cJ Ry U N C � v�i O= O C�" N V' � F O � t9 y •n � 9 r._
�... 'L �>, vi m . �+ n, o c, m E>. : .. y y; .� y'_
u1 4i N �'O ..�i y CJ Cl "' " G �- G. S: 'J •CJ 'G ="' N i� t+ 'V ''1'� N C C'�.' G�+ C""' �'-.S y 'C iC.� U Tl � O�L' C7 N •� V.y �p � _
w c � q °^� a'� � �cn.� � ❑�.„_. � °�' = o,G '� c °c �b E � yi- So = �' n; � o m � [ E �,ins�� � aa'i.� � =
y� C7 '� � y� �N" J �� G f~ �� tA N y� O lC � C'i '•U y V b�1L 4 �� �"' y { n % W N Q7 y� T Ci •J1 �•3' V� �J ��
�^ ea a�v3 `°p N i. � h� c a���-,^ �'� �� � � v b y'e a� °� ^^ � y'-� �, e. ,��,� o �E-� m 3�r. 3 ae ;=,C� r.
G. O_, C � w p:_ ee :n Y a� y.O • r 7 T., a. v; .G `� u � O��.. : n � � '� _
y 6) G) O w � � r.7 �?. d t7 L, .. O ry ." " l_. ^7 " y O fn ,� O:7 � m e� y O��= e� '« t^� �- r7 '
�� �,bD, 3 O� O Q' 'C 'CJ C�^ O a. '.7C C� C� 'n � N y� O >. �.'�. t7 C a. �., d CL :� Lt�•` C O.�G �'J rJ y y O�� r C O w C=
�Q�[ � �y s�a>" �v�^ajw^�. .,G�O^ ���„wn•a'p�CEFH'�-yp�v3�a�i000z�C'L;�yC`
� N � �� � > � -� � � .+ 'J � 7 �.. y :7 x �.. �y � q � •..
:. A � o .� � � ;y � ... � :� . C ^ ... y y _ m � � C o r a, � ;� � C Z � ^ � G.� _
Cw Vl N.-".. G7 :n CJ f. • :� .: .O L q W C 6! vl
o u c� u>>,a � • � E..._.c��N❑'Raan❑ .t�u E...�=
wd y y N•; S y :) ppfl. n.., O.. :� ^_' y u tp O �i �� vi •� ., t7 C ^� w uf ..
�+ �•y 3' N'3' .t'i y �S Q w�+ (.'. ,,,; Vl �„�„ p Q� .r.r ,.""f ? 2i ;� y CS a�� �, iw � ti 71 � X 1.� 61 � V 9 w �.�> f7 :i = w� L. •r V CJ .�
y y N.G: y/ .�Ci � b N•� � 7� � 07 �lC y:J � y r+ •`i a�.+ �.."� ���$ a, . E 0. y W ir' OJ C� (p y C}� y y y��� -
[� L=. Or�p� O3 w�. � 7. G O C J � C N� ^ C.L' � 1.. '� CJ j'_. frV y CJ � Y n. Cl � O V y. y y"" «J � y.r O� f7 �..�". y y C'� :: _
Qi C.�{�i Qr•4 {r N 0 N OCi� r,tj C C O 4��� � r�'. � N� y�� r� L' � C1 .i�r O���� N��� �•� .�i � a � t'd �� V y �� y�
�a a�i c c E."a w �� c°� m 2 ^�. -��.° ° �°: a.° n°' i c.c ` N° �°J5? �°7 n.H N n:�v° �.°'cU �; C�� �Z c.
G� .. � • • . ^ •' ^ ;� -- '� �' -' • _ _ �r� _ _ _ • •C. : �• .� r_,— _, . . , .. .. ; � : .: Z .... ,? N
� C C 6 q `" •.w. 'L7 � 'i.. � �� cwC 9 .� � r O7 C1" t^ O G ��re+ ia fn Liwtc 'Cf b y � � j� m `? �, 6i O 'k, C � TJ O e ' �p +y • � � y `,. "�"+ �y : � .Lp y y�
LOyNOLiV'��.r''.jO•NN i''«�Va..y.~Vf�d� w0(A�N'D��N Q��G.C�1S''y01a� �w�� bLriNftl�'�Vf '•r•O'-a{-iw�'��
^ (a v = ': � ^ �a '� .d >y.c: % G .c," v cr n..n ° W �«. � ri �/i � .[ �,^ a� o .r a � ,� ...Hi �° V u � Q `r, � O� ;� H ^'� G' wyi �... a a� �a � �
'EcS���•�`�vh�c�a��[0'm`' "a�oq°cidv°.1° —a,°� �.o�o�[ �ya`° �,°°',['a� ya �oy.��
..y¢ '- o �p, H .�y G o ��u m gG a,wmc 3. �.. m«.c�m �» on
?C6�=�C..Cd6/C.�C.%NE[.Ci..C7�.-,4G�D��GCtOa�h�'c�.Cy.,p�H'�ca >y�GbO1 Uv..[ Nw'�iC+�'C� ~Ci �Q�UCo
_�„ ea.,�v� " v, c a � oF ��o ��'C ovi ;;'"' � v� a�i o�'Z o° � R >��o �.0 � p,07 >°' �[ ro ayi `°"' m,.4 °"°'�
j � . r . N �•y ,`,� .. y '� b [ � + ,�. «n ,� .C: •.r � � y Q� � � ' .L' t0 .� Vl "" � 6"i C! X. i .� •~ V/ � .1� N
� �o...�.vq?3�r. m�3eo� � �"" 03 G Zv "oa �veoycw. ��.... ���tieo'd po, mm C
�, o -� Ll d «. .c � ti ... .a
f �...c..o,�yE- am.ca[,.,o�c.. �v �:2v '��m'�a�a uq�o�C.� 3 �" y m.cu �N �a��o�
]'� N� iV L" .C' 4' W Lr �' r�l W � til W�� _'r' �.i�i N� N• V 67 • L+ 3 E"� 0�� �(. O� E'+ N u..r i�.. 67 Gi a.+ .'�
.a_Ja�a,m�.,v,c"� .o°'�. °: > m=yva�ccq.. a"' 5 5..,0--"'�o o aim r�, �a.5v«.
i°'�;,ca°��UoGz'�.cc�v,z��b�`�°ati��,�,c��=°o�ia.`�''�vaoo aaQaC`° c�° 2��..03 „o� 3 �°'
� F 'h.� .r tn � ~ � y � y 1.�
?w°3c`N°��E "�,c°D'�=dG��otdvoo"i�'q":'�a,o.j�v'�=E.»a�i �vov�N� o°';��Ey��o �o� • y,¢�,°�'
� a.r 3��mx�..c'a ��.�.-, yuy� N Ac,..y44w~�c°::' ""'.cm r,'B�c°°-5�oha'vovo'b y° u� m�a
, 3`° a, v�� y°='� `° �„'z' c o°° 3$ i v y W�O •N ���' w� a.^ y,x m aa.i � �� 3 '��; m°� [ a� a � a z c, c z "� 3� 3�
� o � � y � q t0 .G � �, ��+ F �° G a'� m C � m ��+ � � "' G G � v' �v o ��+ p,� _, y � � p �'Cw'O .a� H � � «. 3 a> h � o � ¢ �v $ •`� 5 v v, .0 � �3+ `° 3
ppS7 3� y � Vi y Ly'. .O Ci '�" F����N Rf Ti Ir fO L. �" � O`�i �„' �" i'. z �%y�i 'C: Vi Li �fn 7 y Ci +h o--1 �' "' i~ ••� t��+ p.
' Z �.. L" N .0 ._, G• C, tO L' f3. fn „G 6� C7. O Is'� ...
.n �� C� 3 2�� o.S .°'c� 4:.�(��e�CCN G t�i •�� in �CA4 CS�w �� c�o �o EA ac �� 6���� c�oa acA v N .�.z� 3
C
N
�O
N
d
n
V
.�
`o
.�
N
3
Z
� , y •`,3
'k�o�� .m+��r;,o:
a��,a.� �'c,�"� ��a a� c�
��C! � � � "" O 'Ct y � o>
0> 0>� ��O � pq0� ��" Ci
+� o����a�,v�����
3 � � �,y ^1 +� Qi '� � cl C .�
�+.�� y•M � � y+�+":M.
„� � � � � '�'.`Y` � Ql +^� c �sr.
�•S p,,,� i•" p p
'��.. 3 ,�'"a a +'�.� o .a 3 � ^C
ct c� �. .�'
>� W^ G' eN0 W O. '�'O T1 �.� 61 6J G"
_'� �' t a� � `y° ��,~_,� 3..,
� O � G[ C tC0 cC y C� "' , r '� O� 0,
c p�
�.G Q.�"�" H � N N .:'"r ��^� �i R! f�7
v� o F �� a eo. .o v�� �'�'� �,
� ay•• 3�, �cAGu,a3;n
vo ���a�=; 3�eca"5cu
�oo -o.o7�U a V mm'�ti
i,c ��a,a�c vw��`oa�o
: � .�'�" O� C� O($ �.� R A N+'r y. � d
,= pG v v 3.o w y 3� � o�� a�iti.
7 a•e a�iA � co �s 3°T' � aa`�i� 3�.y «.
� u�F a�i u�i uoi a[i ���""= G �� �~ �
S.� S.`�c a.n °H'Z . �W�A`�'r.a o�'oA
y v �. �, c
c"'°oy�m�m
� L
N � � +y$ V N �
�J `{� a N �� � Y
� Q N C = � �
� � N �' N C N
�$ �.n o�,g �
� Iw��-���
.�Se� �,
a� o �u�i Eu'�j �'
�q, m 3 m a o��o
C� O.��., O. tA C C
tn � l0 l�.
WN�p'y'� N �C y�
C � N_Lb_p�`�.Q M
'q�'�°' � m.oC�w
�_ m
E� ��;B Qy N vi
.=' N N y N E t�0 N'w��..
fA .rJ ,C � C V~ 3 U
`7 O r
v`°- � o � � O'7it
+�N+ � Y.L) p 7 N Z �
c '� :° .c ,� � 3
Nmomo�omta
N ' b0'O � Q N �
d�� C G O � N'_
� � 3 � �
���.�c>,uZ�3
0 �p .N-� C Cli � � � V1
��
m E ai E�'m$ � �
N J S] � � ~ � � .�NC
�o������w
3M-•-o�o�mo
� N � � � � Q�1 � N
z�`o.c aN`� � °N�'m E
� ri
� a � u9
� � � o �� �
C yQl� ys} �� (O V � M
p 4 ��t a o 0 on °_�°� Y � K
m���a��� �d =o ��•� •_
E CJ — N w' F
o ��'� �c.'�ioavoaat=.�,�in �a�a
......�... .,t�-
. .............. ..... ..... . ...... ......
a. . . .. ..�........... d........
ry o en T�. n a� .i o {� �n t" y �¢ a �
1t1 !tf `= Iff M Z tD C� as� �p 52 �Q nj
� �D � tD V(D f0 ��D P f0 W� tD l0� ID
�� O L NI� U�0' b,C`0� .t-'T' C X
t� a b o. � � o �.c � a V � '�
Y N � G1 0 O
a� N��• t�r c�� �� � a. a
� a�
� �
r
m m rn
d �
c O
�
�c�0'C.G,00 ai�C}'iai�y'�c�VO O"�`C� pbOQ��Oc�'OC�a q`�j �CO�� 0�.�.�
��"F d� t0 �' 47 ,� �+ �' U O et7 E' 'G A� O O..�.� N�.. pl G�'�" C�l C' �'S 'C � O:-. L' � � N
� « O ?, C. 'C „' y � �" «. .-. �y ... in �.. � ... p C y .P',,, m •C �� 4' O 'r dp C7 [ O
,.,�N��p oc�^°po��,c `°o,o�0 3wa�'°eo...QV��: � oa,y=�:c°% c�i°>.
�a m� 0 w 2 q o a iv y p o C �� �ca 'yaC'�C yW y � u= '"� ���cNO ^'d a�e ; C
0 d?,�� >.o v:?z�c c��e� a'3� o'"H��ro•'����u cG°'ner'�� °:E°
Nq a�-a 6..�«��� �U :: ma"i 2°°:��°'«��r�Ge3.�ovNRo d�E
A �' C � c= c°, a'� � A' °: W.o ;; ,, y>� a� ,a '� 'c �' a!". o o'o C.7 �y H :G o no
� c��:eo�a3 .o6o.�y�❑om�om°'.c4 v�'Vcanaoca°Ja�°"v°'-��G�"'y"Nu
o c• �, . 'u� �v .., �.. � 3� ,a m�v c,-i ao.o a. o°' �o y°� w�.o c
�L" `otJ y'�5 c '^ 0°y^rr,U `� p a [� o N .. °'`" � �"o v : v C °�,°� � >.v ��� c °
�p v•-aa �w.9y a+mc� 6C�»m -io ���nm�v, �^ai;,.�vm '�t�
� inp��,,.�0� ='•,O.0 'O�"'.�M•-�ApOmCi «.W C.00Nx Np..O�C� OC�L'SL.l4C)�~C�
yT.0 u'«+ t��iiC� �6%iC'�2C�^ pO�.O.C�pdtO�p .G,.�j..`�.�Q �wOeV'n
����N�o •o��oo�NN���yo�N�o��yap,Gla.��}-_m�o�ozo°n�ao�a,
m ai � o. nq•..
� p� �� �•u �'L^ Gi [„� 2 i� 6J � y Rf '� y �,� w y�A y L., V O%. �•.�".. 7 iy a� � N A't�'"' ,V„ t� �.�, �
c A... . a c u.,�c,;;... o., �..� i3a,.e7�.�mua�H
�z3o����- :.ou�v[o��• ¢a��� `�°ti�oo"°'.�>o� �Ha�a�i`�°c•�°Q�.�
B o c�� HU a•..._._._..�U� '�n �.., c� m d� u co� y o a.� 'h .ow ao� �
�^r C. � C� ���,� 4'� � y l0 �" �.G � G��.�"i J �~ d'C '� � r' y KI M Ci 4 G! � S'i OD� L��i .0 �A V y � yNj .� G� N I.di lV � f0 61 v! d >+ � C.�.
tO 6i ,., etl ,C %. .�. ,r .54•,G "' i„ ... O 'O
��C•-�v[n."'T.�"a'u—�..: caR� �d....33,U°y om> E"�,,,'-�w •. m''.»��.o��at.CO.eoHu«.'d�a6:^.�
;�•-Eoo."�.�'°VE.°aa„q;go��.. a�Eom�,[o°� �•: >o�N�ao`" =wC�°o^c°a�im� °;� ,nqCu�'m�o..»
: L�.. �.�. V �� p. ��DD B[�„+" � � u�i �.� C � V'.[.. �' �„ � m O" m m�.. ��,+, b�0 in r v �.�. Q' t� -C � ttf I O i"' z �.+ .�O O� � y p�p C" "i N��" ��"
�oma�m�o�.c�3oo���ym Gw '�oaoy.C��v�°�n'a�� o�•��o�c� uo� yoGo... c� e�oba���d C
��va� V•..�?�H��bx oa_....: ��.ac'�u[.xm�,�:;TEo,a:no,o,�. �o.,,,o��o�n����'d���my.Ct';•^m
-G�c cov y4.. mc.y- En wa, w:.m°�+a��.w>[c�n�n,qyEam 8�•ooca["�m.a�,Q'° '°ominmy
� `J �""' Q ` U Vf �+ � � �"" � � 67 ii 4�.. 0 .... � Ti � G y Q Q ili 4 N � � ti � �^ IQ 4 .i � .% � {r�r Yr � � �'�i .y fA �OQ
�� ��'.. [ C: 0 b <0 �Ci .C'.. N... �.. 7'O w�i � �i R1 r C�'. �i W" t0 � y N Y.� • f V7 �.� ��.. � b 4 O N F r R1 fil ��� '�' � Q is �
'� d.'�".w O.� 61 �..' N tC U fC N� C lQ ��" ^ y � C/ �'L� �`^ f0 y O N � U Cy' ".i p E w w N' .C. �i+ b►�
�.0 .G N t7 C 7 5 N •T� � G7 «. u w N G.� .0 eC A C^ O.: "' i+ - t0 C,., O y
3 n. �, � a; a, �.° an y.n �„ c a, ... � a � � �� m
"`.o�E"�"c�yt„�°1. E�....caRo .o"m "�ti''e�°e �v«. w.a��a�...a�,ceo a; aas'°..=op°3'� 3 .C«...
u A H y � ._ � ,� a ... �... � 'u 'no� �o ,_ � E c .� ... � at+ �a �o 0 8
:�-�,����C��u.c�au�cac�a0°�,co �o�o==H +�=�'v'=8o,°i''mo�aa;� o�yo��yoo.nE'.���3��cc`°i�e�av
�wo-� m o..a�oovaO'�3Hec•• cwevt°a� � � c.•,..•�,00h H 3�•_... �3 ��ea o ne u v
6i�[ O.C.0 pC�::: � O C�ut`�a...,..yC t�a.,•.. � >O� fn u$�., a�'.'GR
� � )-�'`. G�i O O 61 �+' tn " r+ C1 v� O C~i OA: �� N.... �., � N a. w� d � r" C�i V r. �.:: .G y R G«. .0 O t0 ..�. ���'[ C
I.Vi �0 �.�'i �1 G 00 Vi y ^ '�-� G y � •�^ VI r�i ^ N y Q� •G r.� ,H,� ✓ N •fl ' W �' a �e m ,v ° 3 ° "' y � p� � � � N Ir [ ..r
r,..0 Qi ~ a1 0'P'� �'. b Ti L L°�i ~.ci .� Ci 1° �. 4y' � ���r ..� o ori Vl a � b i3. �ii ^ U.� �+ Qi o...4i ci tli la
� :. �'in �a �v • •o n E - m m ,, on �• ... o .., �
�� � a��w., m,,, � � V C v c.� o.�zF �U.o �O ��� � o�m �� �� N v � u c� � a� �° � 3 �a �d '� mp^�
� va •opaO3 e...ma �c�.v w 6n.co:�•^��•^"00���2 aama� a,
°°aa'" °JmHovo-�a`'io�^�"c��oA�aw�+ ..����o�o,o �...^.a'L" 7oHwa6�a tf�np,p, C� ai3�p, i�„C�
�7 p � y [ `" � p$ 0'�y„^i- W�i"" C � N W c0•"' C7 O��+, O � J O C7 � C. Cl i.." 4- Rf � p�� � 4'.� '�y, O?+
.....ca 3...EFmuGVR7...aC.7Fo.�Ea,a. uo....H.-...wv.a2CJe.uhvt�v,v,.�C �oo�a��m3��v��oE.C^�.uQue�� o..o
_ ._....._._ ». . . . . u . . . ._....,�,,,._ . . .......�.. _ ... . _ . . i ._.,.,�.�._ .-.. . -,.7..,-.--,.,T,'• w �. . . .. . .."'-'^.T"'.R�'- - � , - :.
C_
�
�
�o
C1
C
c
Y
�
C
1�
'O
C
l0
�
d �
� `
Y �
m h
�
� �
cp
N ZI
.� 3
� �
0
'c� �
's �
$
��
�
E_
�
V
� '�
.� O
��
N
C
E�
L �
V �
��
d�
o°�
0
�a
c �
= �
��
U
a
S I;—
�Qoo� oo�Hw �'a�E:°� �o°�'.
�nv� C� v�v o°n�� c w � n,c o v c c, °=
�'�= mb ° A c � � d �� >s o ° �i ° �.%
'��[.�v aLa`°i.N'n �n°a�,�..3 ( a�, °c=
U � 4 C � p 0'�' Q.� t�.� � r `� O W f" � N.C', t
NV���� �y�o�, �:L-yv�vc U��,�,^
N��� V �:�i�" � O .C'.. N a� O a�•. n'C1 y„Cj=
� d,� 6J tutl �•'G .�+ O f� y p> y r y tO 'J t'CJ '� r•r. ^
�� W 4 N R% V41f y� O•TI �O CD 7 TL N d 'y :n v
d N�� � 4.� Q OA � v C q� C ��.=%
.a`�i'° 3 E 3.¢�� u'n c^ v� os omoo �;z 4t M1.
�'�cs,��moo>.ti°o-=�.°Jc�r�' I a��c3$_
U4� 4¢3 y�Ex-� pU,r� yU oy�,•� +y y C� Cii� y o '"
�+ p C G� OJ Y� OO� tn O O�, fO�-s G7 y
F Sy 4r 61 w.O CS.� etl d fC r C..'... ¢� � Q.G. C
m
��G
t�j C
> y
����
� � 3
y c�
� o
z
� � v
� E c
�w�
R
n c d
�L '�O O
�=.��c+ Nc ��o;y>c�oa �'Km UU°%�o�oo, ' =�o�moV>f�°J v�°av.c[�o �'_�-
CY td 61 /.� O 1.`�, y •C ,,; •: >�" �y y'�4 �"p �•y � T-. N tJ `� ¢'NL." �,�„ N N�'G �p C�� TS � d C C C r O N � 7;.- ^
~� O� �' c'� .... w t� d C cC "' SS` V t0 �.. tJ d O t[o [�.. G c C.L � G.: >.^ � p� O c�7 d G O ui `� rt7 ._. .'' _
Ga.�ayiaCc >,cEy[�eo��o" � '� �°�•N mo�3Maa:�t��=��m�;�O� u�= -
� �; m an•^�! �„ •"' o
� N i1A 4 tC ✓ � fJ p �"' N Lw � � r La ..'�. �y fr' G tC � N u'1 '� C. G y V 0 �� _ .�
.-. .0 C w❑ £+' • y y Q. �'� �� N�' N � r. V7 Lr 0 y 4r f.�u l?0 0� y� Q d'.i .�'% b T�:� i� h t0 _.
o^y o ...o_.o 'd oma 8•-c �..- �.,3�m 3c�-
°y=''•- c.�„�'-,•^$'.:� u�b o;oN': 4..m c�E._uo•�e��.oE=3 s... o.�
O�o�OhhV.�G 9 u�00yO��C„ � t��p.4C'e�C-`�p�„�'Sttf O�Op.�eo W y33'N-.»u❑�,"-j�:.T�e� .pCw�=
� N y�.'�'. � U u y G U.i' �+ � O7 CJ � 4 Z) V tJ �' 'rL' `� 67 �tC G� C/ �� Q.�+ y 0J vf.' �O O� y 0� CJ C y` � L+ � 3 .... �
07 .-. 4 G1 � v7 %. N N G1 0_. 4 (7 � �-. _'
U v 3 '� U r� o''" C cao H m ao v y°�.,V m �U ���U � �Z �`� ��� v y� on � ���... �: oaE �..
.�,��COu.e' in CO."" wyOC'C7��`n�:C«;6�W [a~iY.Cd�d�`"a+U'ZC❑Oy�'�a�>OC� G"r—_
dc� O 4a uf '^ U O O��, .�. � tq ct1 .� y. N�. O O?.r S: CL v� �".. E �, �' _
.� v:�+ TJ '� �L a! in •� '� a, [-� 3 v� N y y,,, y-� ��i C�-. N N m �% Cl t C' p� O. — C':
qy y f�C a U ' . U 'a O � ar (0 0 y N .'y � � V y � y 67 VJ 6/ � ^ 3 O � ��.. w.r �-N' O ,� � �.I�. � 'i` 'b U = �J U },w 'C t :7 ,. :'
O C C� fn C ��nw•-�.•^ ;n Q � OOcC �+N �� 0.��..�'�� ftf' C;a y N[ Ot.U�.. �� ti7 �NQ ~ C C A CO� V�� `' �
N O [ C� " � O T! > y... N a) ¢) O V �� pp U �; =
�y c) N O.•^ .� N G) •.^.. C) ' C � q N'C1 �. O C.CJ /y � p, O u�... e� ��L'.0 � L.0 :! E C'� O`v �
'N G .., y «f .G [ : n _' '+-� ... v� y N •N _. 'Cf e0 - C a'C •" � v� � �n a� o o.. � -
�._.�o._�,•..�,... �ou�.�e�.��a, E._zmcy
A
���uaFQ.> � �G"yvdiNC" '�"'""NO�L�.��GJC��y � .
O E O y�_ a�tA K y O,O� C�rJ >—' r �i :d O.� C:.�-' O
Vw C a �C7 c�am-° oF v° 3� m 8 7 u�U °i� o.v-5 '�'� %' -
�'
a� ,n
n ' m � ' . .-i
M N C y � C � d �� � C O�� � M=
Q Y (n � t!1 �� � f0 . � Z� l0 O
� C� �C,= f0 C QCi� KO lIi f0 N W IU N 9" O 4� C C O� �� N Y p
c_ � o'o�a o'",,�.°'.`'� �°' o°�°g`�" o m c�i �a� � m.�o� E � c
�= N C ., .+... i7 N N N�`� C�>, C� y O� C� N C Q
a c M :� r
wm�� aEin'o���3oEow��vo�1°��m
�m'mb"�i ��':"F':. �• gvm`mim,�°i,cc�.�wEa`�cm¢rE°'..nE3
A A � A A A AA
'�� . ��:�r.:;'?+a,.-=i.»:"•-��_ , :... - .. .. � . - . . . .. ... . �t::�. :;' � .:�..;...h._ .
�----} �'i� ti � 1"�`�
e �
( . ;�ry '� � �
� � ������ I
m � �i" .�;�� ��`."�,�:� �
� �a " � � �
M .
u �
g�` � � r��`�' �� ��,
A m� s� � �� " � �" �:
.� � � ��'�� � �'�x
a o�2 z2' v�i �'� a��.°� o� e.��e�v
�= Gy,,co;o`°''=c�o�d�oa'�� °Eco�u3ro y��o°EA�[ a o'�,��m�' C.°'ov�.n��.�
p y L W'� y G"Ly C 0�%'� �.1 ��9 C� N C%.'f^" d' 4 N � a w i]. ��� Ci C^ s�. tn y0�. �' C�+Y y'Li L�' U� p�+ �i. .+� Ir'O .. ty 0
�-�+ 67 �� � w'm c� = 3't,' d A C.' 2.. � .� N� e,C 1.� O 61 C�" � W tn 47 W CJ � p(�j � w?� �RI G� O'O y' (O G(^�j 7+"' � U G�
Ca cx �ab z�3 , a ���aac �bc°::m'�a,.c�.c°3�°,HE�+.�«...,o��y°�'°c
.0 ..� r N � ���.C'.. n C O'� OD O� R .� �'y R1 N.�. '� � O7 .� R% .� p W" CI � C. N��' .. C±'-' !0 3 y'L �
3 C C! � Y C N LS. � tt1 y C. �O . O C U y y.r L�U '.. '� L y
p._ �...am `^ eomEe� ,��... C,C� ti y��°3,o e�C cC e� e❑ r�'-.�a�>�
G Y L. r' L•� Q,ti 0� O~ O a/ �.Li �7 N•C� G��r Q.Ci � V� � {7i� �� O L' Q d.� •Qi V N�•y �� �0 C� C� y QJ W.i � �
4 O .i� C1 4.� r. "� .�" �"r �"� F� l`�-� 4 d � C'i Gi � Qi C. OA�.� yj ..w G��u N(J p,._ttl. ��.ld t,�i Cl �. Q7 � U.y � � Y
� �vWE .co�mv�o-y � .�n. "'�on��„4'a,���°'s'-3°�t°aN y.n� �ao,_� E �� s
m o u o, r i �, a� ,., a+ e�e 6 c, c a c g
� -p y Z t.. c, o m C � on a, ^� o �°°'�, U`- '~ o. w � o " o
y ony ...c 2�we,_c, -r b�a G�c�,m av �H�u_� oa:...mm�`°°'� E�
� H �; a8 v H d x3oa a, c
��y �Ya,m�°��,-'�,.:-"�°'._-' aN�r�, -'���,�v.� [�'a„e�o�°6 c a�u„ .'euuena��o
� . °' �o� .nd�oo��a�3 y ��.o���� �h._o�:=._ °'oaH�'g'�a�❑ .° >1' E :3
„� � � C w �^-O [A,� va.S'c'�,� �7 � mo aZ ;a�� C ci°i ��'vCJ � �^ A dx �N 3 m'fl °'co � o o�a, o.. �.,R c°, y" �
•� N � R% ..+�.� � �"" Y. R7 N tr O T 1n Q� N O W fC 4% 1.n �" N� O^ N i C N
4► R1 � N Q�A Vi E"'� v.na w a d N a�"•L' (A W i�.. V.a N W•� L^'ri'G• 4. 4 L"i. �'. ... tn.ii N�i �.r �{V T.+ Ci.r �,y,�' � 61
� �y.c�pw�'-�a� qaNyo�� ,on..oa�oN v a.� ;-�omp vw_�- 3❑cB...a.n.�Ua,���.c
g a, 000atyo��a, a,.�o „o�.y...o'�^n; �w[F.�E,a'��'n�H"c°='o a,vo�'Haa"'-• -
5 '� :" �� Z u� �.',,, o a � A❑ �'' .N m � o a� �; 3 p 0 td '^ Z�o � o ���[ 3•y N m 8 "�^ "
Z .c 3.�•`•�aac°re9!'aE't�°a:�=>`y' ocho�..nv��;.-.�.�u��d���.cc �°u°�c���aaw�o���
`0 s o '-
W � y
0. �
N.C'" '1. _
� 0 �.�
tAu "�••=
`.a yC.: �
ev °.°' -
v..s y.�-
3�.�=_
��=
0.��_ _
� o
O c�-!
C o = � c
tA O � '
i: �• G - _
�'� �..�
.�� C `_'-
r� ,
_._ ___
_ _ _
�
� � U ln .L� � y •� ��� N Q� .I�i N L'i � Y in CJ .� � Q E N�.. � d� Q1 L^ .y �y � U �� �_ � 0 j� b ii �� N L'i 4. 3' lC G�i
y��m«�>'' Oa�C 0.0�� p N'iq � 0....Oy.�• :CE4+ O y'1""m.�i 'F'.... �C� y N .C„N�� yctl
N Rt O 00.... y y N._. •�S .O .^� �" _.L O fn O.7 L�i � Crl C7 .4 N�S .N �+ �
y n' V N� Li iw IlV�f Y. e' 61 Vl � a N �-+ 3 4� G! y!1 .'Y. w% V`y' il. O "S"' U.D O p N I_+ .�"'.� �Oj TJ -� �� "n t0
�r : 3 c 3 1n �� �� N�R{ V�+ ��� V 0��. �� Q•�i .:r�' Ri �� G {r .Li 4w v� Ri 0 v id � d d N H � �
.. ovc a� � u aa. a,o_..ti ayiCa bo .�� a�',� z.d u u�°°�, °"
V..W �w y'i.. u�.L� y 4a� O.G'.[.� C O C="' N��� �t�' OZ G N^Ob~ O��N >' �'N= c��7 "N' �� vV�j d 6�i '�� �. ro S p C'" p �'�S
Ol ._, .0 N �. V1 V �" �•D C d C� CJ tV �+ bD �' G' F+ w y"� ._. N C� u .0 C N G
lO � Q1 .�'. Vl � G � R1 b0 C �O N.n N N 'r" .0 ..C+i .O V 7
O� � �'.' �.�. � CL �.�. ^ b�"O '1Q' "' C y'O t� 'C U L�.' � bD� � v� C" p ty ,,, N a1 C.� ... 4� " O � C.0 O�'" � � ' rj C' O 7
cZ—q v'_H>uGu:�vGa��n...� „�,Jr. u._ v w O� 3w::: .n
u ¢y��ovo�b� .,eu..r' �� � v�y o w-'�v�n-��+3� �m� 6.,u� " Hu � .
'� l.aN'JC��NUZi«I�QJ '�"�'W.007i4C L..��"�G-�Vb� 4C'"v6i��",�.�„�"",�4' G�IO�CG'iV�• G 7'+'C�'� OC1NN pC�•Q�+ t0�'�j
o ��o[oaw�o a. 3,«:o�E3N�d.nc,o"°.n V�.�a.o'ev>ot?m ( a°iu�ax,aoL�r�`�'�°a,cH.�� U�o�a� ym�a °'';:�H
30 �� L'' � Ri �^''� �� 41 �'�i •ty/! y� •i~• N�1 tC V'l � Q� � Ci (� O! L� � N N C'i Q) �'.. Y� V ' R1 }. a �n 3.�
�p «: ti i.. N C y� ""' .r � .0 ... .r • y R% Ri �..C'n � 6J C7 � C� S'" C'� C1 N' v 0 N O.�. N Oi .� � y RJ 67 �y � O`+ i 4 O y v V,�,� (�j R1 Cl
� Si O V � O b . C, ( b E, 'C"" II. � Ci S,..r tU �., O,C ,4", �j` 67 y A C C 6i z N.+'J C4 0 E' � a. " � O C y � � v�i 4.'C
��._2a cod�=:'uG��Eco::�a.>,: �c'�i • .�o'iaao�a�i.�6�u °.���...°��-� >,_ °w a�.°;=.= :dovi�c�oi �o`
",�.��c�.^�,�c�'��'a�'',>n'�'�,�v`°o�QE�v�o["°°°�o�°`°''°'`�°��'�,�on���n,°m`w°O�ycc��U,�w,om��� e��°
�..��y .cm�co'0.c. U��.•�...�od�� �°'_°�_a�ia"io�;;tn,�on�q.�o°8�,;oE� �y�a �.��c,.-� o,,g
�..❑4.. >. o�von� .,C�?,nco��•�y"��en�uo�r� �o...�"'�o.-o�yMqy�v°��y�� v=aaoo,�'°=,�
�«� ��V��V u�.C;o�'C��cQiy= v C��y��C uca'O+-��cV z��Ca`"i� �m a�C7 °� �n(� +�.o :.c
�a�, �`^�� �E� a�v I a ��o[Ov =o°n°c. -°r..-[.�muUm° ��� � v°'ac�wao�3$ a°�� �U�3 vo.°c'� .cm
J G� ��E�ca�°',a a��,K�°� c���e� ��y�.: :.mE $t°c�i N?
'- > � V 8 m `4' �'^ � °'O' E ' N °"� 4= O •in •Q� tO V ? a, 3 ° '� � �c " � �v =' [ °: �
?�� j��N O, G? C7 ��.�'.. O y �.. =i p C.� � 67 � y C� �'�,�, � W � G C,�, 'p p� p�.�. p
?a�.`°e���,o���A o�.c°�1'� ,�G�� ��ao� `��° ���+`w.°��3.°'
0 N'w N Vl � a,� 3 U � 67 on bD LUn Vl � t� �td 0 CfJ ��" OA.�. N 0'L� 0 q O� Q CO
ic xEVv����:=3.ac�m>,�'•u> ��a� c°a,000 �`°c °°u::a�,o
-� G 1�.. R1 � 'b 1".. ,� R'1 ^�s' u(tl y y 4'� 4i `� CO C.�u"'. �Vl ��+� C7 %.0 �� b0 y U O. � C'i ..�". y
C7 w� d R 4��N W W R7. .s �O �.. Q� O G S' ^� tA y N�N 1+ tV '� W fV N..+
=:'C��v�°VaiE�+a� y�..m.awG�nj� o o".v_.a, c�om a�o�EE?,[
��j u::.c� o�'3 �� o°� v,x1y o° G��j o� c � o y��r� N 6� �� �e �:° ��
v � d� v,a�� c���� �o o' 1° .� o',o,��eou..,
, i�'.. y U .7 y U.^ H f� en .� l 9 1. �+ C 1 6 7 N
' OeC 3:'3�+�, 'fly•w�Ea��°"°• �a�id� �o�,�ab c�imc�',a� .,o�E
�H u •oT, � � 'C� �.�. � G V N � ld � 'O � � � � � � ~ � N ''7 � � �. t� � � � � �' {'ii C7 •l0 lV � C
�oFa.c°��'°'�,�tl�°�°'�"^o.o�oe,��Sc�'�ma,'�6�'�n.m'oa�i'Sx'����G?:
.a•.C>vcAa�e.o�e�.N> >•4 �w�> on.c h ea[•-d�
°�"'3• ��°o°'Ozc�v`�a,1°��ce,����.rr"WC•4y`�°6�67�y;v"u3��ao
�F ��v� v�sf::.:'� a�i �w � o�� y��c�F Ga ;.o: u�; �x�U'c; v°7,�n � io ox vx
,a �°: x�omv• m. �ym�cv �•'o� ..�A o ti�� 06-� c`°
oc dhax�3y ~�c...aEo� 3�n�_ .....a._.. a.�, .0�3 �E
;�awi�07„'m�C�>� L.Hp���q °''��-•_°-:
C �p L.. y+ "� �L� U 'J' � ."1. V N '� i..� •d �.%
m o..�VCC� vG.�s.9 t[CCa�i�
�'� \� � � u° a`��e.c G = a.u�E�
J. l�n°'y °'��..�ea? eavy�
`��`' :t°o`3`O� ; [� 3°'.��:.
�m�.C��C�Op�p� ��.�6`�i
h � U��,�
'C�mO'S�aiO�L�,'OF" Aw"C
�..O..C�CC�07Z�vf>�.::cCO� V
.O
mdw°vo`E~��A.;��aic[�N�o
G�T�z�'�.°eoaN���o33���y
I"" 67 N
�oN�°J e�e'Sh'�"oo�a,"'�i.F
.0 z. U � t0 � . V N fC E' � �' 3 .L� .:: � � � T'..
1�.Co>C ar�HpR'C>'3E""'ai o
3�EE��� �aE.°n.a"o 3�y�¢
... .� y 0 � [ � � y � � � O � y � � � �
v° `° .° � � .° o -o � � v� 4 .�¢ � 3 '_' .�
y w l0 .� GL 7 "� ��+ C7 N y'�j„�' N N'R � R1
ipyi0• d'n �y[O.C.� CO � �� L
'V.�4 w�� � y � V O.� O'in `n �'+'co'C7 �
� y�„ w d ft1 �� «. � C7 .n U y..N. 4�.0 O�Gr C
�c�jco�°eo v��`[°C •c�dc°n° � m
G, Y v��'� 7'S v'� H a' �m G'�C �[� L� �'
N �' Nw W Ow �� 4: � v ma C�•etl (n_
�P °' m N 3 „3 m �,.c�U `m �a.�-.-o
'O m �v [ ma a `° a�� a�� �'d o � a61i
w
�Oq��aa''i::�o�m�zC���.�talloinoEi�R
.� r�umHCc�'UmoNaGion2`�r.���'_'��.p
� °'tO�°°�m°i� °'�`°"`rd��.cc�e°'o= >'m
���'S�«9�,�0"„00,� o.��a,"'-3°'c��
�/ix�[�y�vmE'G.,� a4w�aoo3v[»x
G ��m9:�o 3°S�o� 3�ti°��Ouv°
o �V G"' � m[�`" c" G� c�Nti '.::; �vU y�� y A c o c g.� ao
v. v u�„�• .0 7 N1: 61 �� .0 �.i � C1 p� G' N O N G O O W��+ C
QI .C. � � : tn ,�'f�' I-� '�+ N y •N ' . C L. [ y � � 3. ��C�i 3 Vf � � Li G �Vl
'- 'O�a.�~��3�H�W8Gm �,�,.._ nm .�._,c a❑„��v„o
�a� �an da,m•-o°❑a�oar�m�vd'��co� omN��-a
p,� o �.>�3aE �v• 3a,'dv��oHv,.�,n�o�.co 'Go �a� [Na
_ � �' ��oa,�a,�,a�c.•_. w�a,�E.mc"z�oz ��...�;000
O d ��%yG ��.� G p�� z�� a� O.Q C�� G V C C 3 C�� V y�z'� �'a�i
++-a vg -3�ya�m3c��v�E":�. a�i�z���a°'ia...�wa,o ���a.,;�.cv
�� �.��_3�A�..o[y�� y-.vo,m:a�o3,�'°ennn'�� �oab�
y y �., �= �o v y o�� ob �[ aoo., y � w dE.c; [ d an d a� c,�
i'O C!C �.L' R3 �"'� "C �" f`�.� N S' ...� C� a7 J aJ N C.O Rl S p C+ OD ��y � Q� C �.i
.G_'".. =zxV.G..�G"Nd�.Coynum�y,�y��vyqoA:si ��'��03�
++ m ;[�.��...,,¢ vc..�C�7�om~4�.aomm...3wC�p�y,� ;poa�'*yn�.� p
hq �U v y� 3',^ �o o c v.c •- m,. •�. 3'u C� C,� ._ ,., g... �� w�- m a� � u d o
> a a.� at "-. C 'H : -� m .� m - � � � U � � .a .c a -- .r � ...
�''�""" "' "� �'O y'�' 41 A'L! C'C N? C� �. C._. y i... U O�'tC TJ ✓ H O L." � �•G a+
°���"mshxc�n[��o.H�pOc,':-a°;o2 �.��A,en�'a aoo�'m3[o
E� oF 3�i �� y��> Aa S� C C� iwa�i� aom� a�'i�'�oobtt �� 7 y uTfF o �i•
ee .., a� � �o N ca � a, o m•�.��w q�... aq �
".Q Z � o°Do° :: �� c°�:° no �v4/�'�, ��� � m� ew�w ���3.a� no°a.nA'�o °�
'a
d
C
N
ta
m
c�'"cwv o
�
:� � u
iC G7 y
yCa�4
a�^
.`�c .[ ,u m
a,
NGwp
� � V �
E��"
a y
qpN..~.^R�
�[cd.�
a[i�[�
y � � W
��E°
w � v�
d C � C
.m[�r
_ .............................................._..................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................._...................................................................
c
0
c `�
m o 'w .+S a, �
.`-°�a E�m ��rEa�
¢���'}��m�s, ���c
��'ot7Z-�=~ o m�a''`n
-�� o rc� Li= �.�t o���i
Ci�wayCp�00��aC9
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
_._ .w.�e:.. . .. .� ��.,:�u::cs����.n1�G:>.. .. ., . _ .. - ..,,. : ars�s:_..��::7�^+� •x s
. _ ..� - - �t:.' �•a., ,:..� _ _.. ,. ,..�_.__ _.. ..
� 6/ N� �+ � O � ,Q 0� G¢� 'C O'O 4 N�O R% t ilJ Q. lE y
7�� C t0 N"�"' � ai " OD� 'ti7 C� N. t0 m' 7, �E � C W
;g��..,��,, [. h� u BN;Ea�,oc
'� = oci �oo,.�i � a o'� o'[ N o.n o'o•o c'�'v �.c
:e"'i��a�Ga����y��e�a6.c•� oAm6/°���
•' �"N' a in�Q'C 4',d�,�+i � u� p C mti '[ � x� ea;d�C ao
:' Ir :' ��• T p` U•~ y(O,! V� � N SG O~ � y fn I��w
� 6! � 67 6r N M n'..I' N 9 ir �� y C�y l4 �� � 4' .C; .,n �
, � c o a, ci E , •y •>' •�e ;,, e «: ,� °� � � � � � o ._
� o`n�°.'�''-' oQ 61M a, °' �C�OV ao'��'. 4� c°1i y� d.n
jO�' •�..�'Q.....in 3�.CC>. Cvi..:'�a�OC�yi,N,Gi�
tn � O Ci tU .0 C• ... ... C O� i.;, .O -�+ �.0 m�... r..
'�+yvb� y3��� 30'3�3o>ov:� vc �.
: a� ... w x s W p-y �'H F, a.c m q u s a.... .�.5
�nc�ae�s�o¢`�o`:a°,�'�'ax1}� ���ss�;��a°i'�'�
E �a �... 3 an. Z � ' �� a, � �'a ` .° � c°� 3 .9, E .: �
4 tC '�' ft7 /�.. 4„y,. � V�l f9 � C7 I�n �j `,,,{' � Ri tn L�r �,y"' 4 Ci Q) :� ��j C7 �,��» �
CeCO �OOC_. >tO�..0 C00�4 � �.. w.
p, tn G,y�,�"', •"' ,F, �0 p'� � C�0 O�D � O � X.�.. � O. �. c~0 O y[ 0�+7 '�" C� p�p,G e. � O
0 C'C .4, O,n C �., ;0 G y�,� =�•"•• � N y iV O`+ E iZ Cy1 y C. O ay y C� bAti+ �'i
o°n�w[-�'_�m uQm¢o8��om��o�oW :.o,Nu�N.rjav
�" � �" '� w v w..�. N.t"" � �._. O.0 W.+ G W y, C y� "� C
V... u y0 A�w Q) C'i tA C V 0 wn G"i •(d V� V N�~ ii �.i�i'�'�% �"0 � 4 ..�� �
E yooqaoa.a��o•'ovz ��'�v8 pc.�o°� �yo
C'fnCy;'....�".a��� 'nt7t0�v0� >...v� � �3? b0 CO W
°; v N� p � N � u a `° � V� C� N' w Q $ U q p, E"" �� y�'� C� p, •y � ti
fU �..r.CCaiAm��a>,,� A-O ,C .c �y pea
!(c,�f c�i;°o��„a...�°�o'a��`°`��..�5�� � �c�ia,�: O.co°n°o� '��
f/l:..�O�.�.Od'� cq�:.d`�NNLl.�d��.CE"v�� 'l7pwO.iOCa��'„y�,='�w„ c�47Cp
L' y y �� y V���,�, �.G p C;0 � a'�' c) Gi q..�. 'C i+f W .. .' J a) p� � `+
3 /� c.a d[ ua�x° `� :c��°�'+7«,'�"„K5°o��'o3y ,°',e�
IJ � � Y A Q N ir 4 � �.ri � R
�-.c o •,� a,•��o.co�o �cmo3C�e"��c:,3o�,�� �,e..
vro �
to oc��^��c� � ao-c�b„a N�..»oE'.61coN°c�.5A.a.a a a
��' ��da �'��o a�o'c�°q'�,z��;ob�+@a'�j?,1�o��00����''o.�"�'�
.. . �._zuc�..0 �6c ..y-w�n....�3 acu� �:�..y �nu
��
a °�b �� � e'v �
G '�0 erd � c. �'�on
a .5 �o d a, •_
y 'tj y .b u rir�
� �� �..�.>'
p, u o „:�
m
� ['� «: �� �
� N V � � 0
a � � mAr= p,
on
t�.
.�'�� �o� d
N F ��bd.cv�w��
�W���=�� o
3o3y'zvid`� �
N�doyA�
[��"z�°y �
A�zo ?°H
.?. Q(O Ly"i C� i� 6! y?
��„� .�,' � p pp 4•� y Q
ay � ��q9
ief
.a �O. y y.�4 �� �'�
yc�ay� c�C.C�.CC.m
..�""',. oi 'eC w� p 0~7 y S.' tw
W u" C � " `• a� •" '.�..
G�� NW �� � � W
� C�'��'U
+��' .0 y � tGe � E-� O
3._N �in � aao
..y.� � 4 d N�'� N y 4 � �
�,�, 4 y,�4 � rp, O bAVJ � d
� w��-a �o a[ � 3 a
�n°x °:� a�a' a°i�s° c
�O "'y tiL+ M F, y C� ¢�
C � '_ � '� � .'�. �
y 6�j OUi N � p O ?+
y' av'i .y. � o y O. a�i ic
� 0 � y � [ � tA .
C� 'L7 O .q «f •-� �
•� � t•a'J O'^t70T' � vUi N
b �C��v�i�'C Ci
� O N> N O b
uf y�Q�� :"'" Ci ..�.� 4 N
��+ Rf F, �" OA V tC �
O p C �
m � u, ts! G ?,
e� '� 4q �p y y� U,G �
r.� 0
��9 CJ � 0�l 4: CJ � y�j �
+:�t-' N o Et-'�w°.o'S
�
o �... °: a c°, °c.� o,
e'� °: a on m q �» �
�,�o�c.n o00
•'R^•V t0 � 000 ~ u' �'
t0 '�"
d��yp.� m��.e°.
�;-"'>s°c�� ��>
G
='�"yo� c o0
°,'��� C C y'3 d
�`��ctf NO
��C,���O N'O•b.0
.�s, y p., � � � '� � •y N
� ._. W N � b0'O �
s�'�,
'C7 tV G F+ wN. �y N O.r�7 L'.
C[�� � a°, >..��.z ��a,
n
a� Umv,�[�.�, ¢'.�..
y � 0 ..: .�y � � _ � �
a� a� o �w ��c.c
��p'TJy[ 'CC�+61Or
N ... O � .
� � y t�i9 i�n V1 ur.. ��
4 Ci y� y�y (L � 4N y d
O � .. � d /d � t9 0 �+
W� � !C7 � 'Ci Cl H Zi �
p W W 97 N 67 �" � W�C
y'" e0 4: p � O
�, [ � i4 [ qj f0 ¢ t�'C = :7
G O
GC,�,GR���COc`�iC
�+,n�."T� �+�ti7iC O.�
°p' �°c,ar'q��EC�o
�L Ghi 7 C 4 �E'.ow ��
��
C °'c �'o`°c M �,� �
�'�o.�om °o�v
'C p 'S � y .Cy' y V 'i �
W bDy y� 7 G m�"n%
c� e°�m '� a c a�
' �� y � � 4 � .a 0 �
pp L>`¢ ttl > ¢ C�i n% b
Oy,:.-pq c�°.°'S
O y � a' �� �� ai �
V cy3 ziio� a
y �Cy�> Cp
[G��Oa;y��¢yymy
� O� T� y d y� � �"
Z w,p � Ci � L:. �U
W.� �o y� O co y" � ai
A '�CC��Ct.0 �
�.c � Li a~i � � ��`. .n
m ,c�`
�'�CN
� �
c�a�
�.vi ��
'o a� ^ ai
rn a�'oo
o_.— c.,
��� �
y��g � o ,"�u�i o
-o c.� a v
p�j �o� a?�
n � V m v
� � � � O
.= 3 � .�
U � U ..._
�� O �
� ���
L O
F�-
a�'i
d
N � (ri
�� C
_ ,a a�
o cq�,, •�
a�o
C y V
� � � O
�' Vj
� � � �
� .� �•D
Ef3 � N C
�o •o c,`O,,
oD Q,
� c c
<o
'''v=i � o
,� c� i
� � O
H L
.�
�
rn
`�
•- �: .. ..
. ��1�
., � �rC�+'�+n�.a�r+wwa�e�� �
.w �+��� �'�'P ,
� �; �a..
' `..^�...,.... ��...�....t..
"' `..,�"''="_v -R ;: �
` f�� M ''t:: t :
� �: �i .
';.1�"' �"' � .
�
• ' ',,
;
� � � � � � � � � Legai Department
VIA TELECOPY
TO: Kevin Batchelder, City Manager, City of Mendota
Heights '
FROM: Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel (726-8178)
SUBJECT: Runway Contracts
DATE: December 9, 1996
Attached is a revised draft of the proposed runway contract for
your review. As I indicated, today, unfortunately, we are not in
a position to propose a precise methodology for the definition of
"affected property awners." Hopefully Nigel and Evan Futterman
from HNTB will be able to set out a definitive methodology within
the next couple of days.
Please give me a call with any questions.
cc: Negotiating Team Members (Via Telecopy)
kb.mem
F
�
��OM OPPENHEIMER (MPLS) (MON) ( 2. 09' 96 10: ( 5/ST. 10 : 05/N0. 3560377903 P 3/5
� . , ... • 1 1 � ( 1
• � ' • • �
11'11'�' • ' •� r
12/p9196 Dr�f
Z. Rec'rtaLs.
l. The Mizno�esota Legzslature, at its 199b sess�ion, has �eaacted Laws of Niin�aesota,
Chapter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (hereinafter��he Runway 3tatute'�, �►�ich a�ends
Minn,esata Statutes 1994, Sec. 4�3.6U8 to rc�qui�ce the Meixopolitan Airports Comzn.�issi,on
(hereicuaft�r "the �ommission" or °`M,.�►.C") to eater into ceztain ca�octcacts w,ith "affected
Cities."
2. Tb.e Run�ay Statute dcSnes "affected city" as bei=t� any city 8ia,t would
ex�erzeuce an i�rea9e in tb.e area locaied witbia ihe 60 Ld� noise coutour a6 a result of
operati�ns using a ihird parall�l. nmway c+o�zstiv.eted at the Twin Cities Int�rnational
.A:ixport (herein,after °`the ,A�ixport"). .
3. The Commissioa has dete�rmi.ne� � th.e City of �endota F�;ights (hex�inaf�r
"th� C�t�� is an a#i�e�ed ciry wifbin the meaning of the Rt�way Sfiatute.
4. The Cammissi�on and the City bav�e met an,d negobated. iu good faiti�, concernin�
i' j the terms and condit�ons of the cozYhract tequired by the Ruaw�.y Sta�rt� aad have arrived
,- at an agree�aent (heteanafl:�r `�th.e .A,greemeat'� which both p0rti�s desire to set £vrih. i�
w�niting.
IY. Def"�nfi6ions.
1. 'Z'he terrm "i]�d parallel z uaway" s�all mean any runway useEt �or the azrival or
departure of air �fi,c at the A�ispo�t con.gtivcted to the n,orth of aad g�erally parallel to
the existin.g parallel runways I�aown as 29L/11R aad 29R/1 iL.
2. The tex�an "construc�' shall mean. �hy�cal coz�s�Q3a a�,d a�,ons preliu�ia:�ty to
consfruction, imcXuding la�,d acquisition, in.clusxoa of fitnds fvr ca�struction in. the capital
improvest�eat Pn?,gra�. budget or solicitat�oa of lrids fvr pe�orm.aace o£physical
constru�ction �rovi�l �h�r the te�rm shall not include plaaaing, activity. The t�rm.
"constzuc�" sba1l aot include land acquisitions by the Co�pamissioa vv�ich inciud� as a
z�strictive covenant an, the deed af canveya��ce that the ac�,uired.land, s�a,i1 not be used for
nu�wa.y �nQposes during the perioQ for which fhis A.gteement is effiective, ��
such restrictive covenant sfrall exprnssiy run fio�c the benefit of affe�cted pxoperty oyQn.ecs
and �� C�ty.
3. The term "a�proval" shaU me�, a legally bin.ding assent occuiriag tbz�ough actioz�t �
� � by which the city legall.y binds itsel�
, .
C
��
,
c
"�FR(�f OPPENHEIMER (MPI,S1 (��N)12. 09' 96 (0:15/ST. (0:05/N0. 3560377903 P 4/5
.� .
4. The tezm, "affecied pxoperty owuer" m,eans a.ny owner vf real propezfy wh.zch
propezi.y is wi.thin that part, of tkze City wbicb. is witbin the 60 Ldn noise cantour and
wh%ch would experience an inczease in, noise g�eater thhan � as a resalt of
opera�ions on a third paz�allel runway, as indiea,fed in the diagiccam attached as E�clubxt A.
IY][ 7Cerms
1. The term of fi�us t��reeuxent s}�1 b� fmm the daie of approval by �'ze Cifiy to
December 3].� 2020, subject to the prav�sions o£tlus para�h. On Ja�Quazy I of ZOZX,
Januazy of 203 X and Jan,u.azy 1 o�204I, tbis agree�meat sbb,alll b� automat�caily xenewed fox
an addition$1 ten-yeac term unless 6ofh the City sad the Commission agcee, at aay 'Eina�e
��.oz to the expiration of th.e pxevious teXm., that fhe ag�reement shall. tezmiaate without
su�b, renewal. Comme�¢cing on January 1, 202Z, thi,s Agreem.e�ut aad auy renewals
ttiereo£'may be t��rnisaated by statutory enactment whXch contaius an express find�ag by
tlze l�!tianesota Legi,slature tb.at, ita its jud�na,eui talc.xag inta account the we1£�re af the
Sfa.fe vf l�ianesata, #here is no pnident or f�easi�ble a��rive ia construc6.on of a thizd
parallet zunway. '
2. I?uXiz�g the perivd far wbich this Agneemeni is e$'ective, the Coarmissiou
�romises that it sha1Z xza�, withouf fb.e appmval o�the Cxty, eonsCcuct a thi�rd pazal.�el
rua.way. Th� Commission promises that pz�or to Decembex 31, Z420, it shali not
a�'izm,aiive�y advoc�e const�zcti,on of a tbitd parallel ivn,way, Fravided +hat np�g �,
t3ais �!�em,ent shal� pr�vent tfie Comznission frana respondis�g to requests for
in�ormatiaa and advice made by the �egisl,ative or execmi,ve bz�anches of state
gane�nnme�a� or their constitae�,t patt4 or designees.
3. Dt�rxng fihe pe�iod fo�r wbich this ,4�greement is effective, the City prom:ises that xt
sball take no actian to opposc tb�e planning and caus�on of a North �vuth Rwaway, as
such runway is describ�d. in the A:uport's Z() �O Iang-iern. comprehensive plan, the
imglemeatai�on of which is authvrized by %a,vvs of NJinn,esoxa 1996, Cb. 464, Art 3,
Subd. 24. W zthotrt lim$tin� the getterality af the foregoiag, th�e City agxees: "
.
a) � its appmval of tUi.s Agreement constttutes a declaralion of tl�e City
endorsing the constructivn o� Ehe abov�eiibed 1�1'oz�fi� goufih �unway; and
b) it shall not institute, be a party:to, financi�ly can.t�t"bufe to or in any atihcr
manner su�pport an.y Ieg�isla,p.on or legal pr�oeeedin.gs (wh�lb�eC judi,e�a1,
aciminietrai�ive or otb�er) wl�ich have as g goal or an e�£ect the delay a�r preventinn
af consfruction of the above-described Nort,h South nmway, including wifixcout
limitation, pz�oceedizigs asserting rigb.t6 undex environmental Iaws oz� regularions
4. It is iuf�ade�d by the Coz�nisszon end the City that, during the periai fot Wiuch
( j i�is Ag�reement is effective, th.e affectcd property ownez•s sha11 ha.ve third PartS'
� beneficiary rights to en�'o�rce this A,greemer.�t in. the even,t that a state law cbanges,
supez�sedes or invalidates this Agreement or if a state Iaw autb:orizes or enables th�
C
�.
(
�� cr�OM OPPENHEIMER (MPLS) (MON)12. 09' 96 10:15/ST. 10:05/N0. 3560337903 P 5/5
. ,
�, . .
Co�onmission to co�,viri�t a thrrd paraUel n�,mway without approva.� of tl�e Cit3r. It is
` farther agreed ih,at tbis right of eafor�cc�ort,ent sha11 include that rxgb,t tv seek specific
enfozc,emern and injwactive relief. Said tb.i.�d pazt.y be�.eficiary rights sha11 cease upon t3�.e
expiration o�this agreement ar its termis�at�aa pwrsuaat to paragraph Z[I. t, of t�.is
���
5. Tbzs �greement co�#itu�es the entire uad�ezstanding of t�ze parties i��a and sba�tt
nnt be su�bjeGi to azry alteraii.o�o, �plemeat or repeal e�cept as agmed to in writing. Tbis
Ag='eeznerrt sha1X be binding upon the parlies aad their successors and assiga�-
6. This Agr+�ezuent shall be binding upozi and innze t�o the beaefit of any other
� affecfed. city wbich, by �ormtal actiona apptvvcs its tc�ns and natifies the Caa�isszon. of
said approval, rrrovided hat suck a,$'�cted, cit�r g�V� �u�, notice to the Comm,issiqm, on or
, . be£ore Iu1y 1,1997. �%thing ia Hus �greem� shall. p�reveaf the Commzssion and
affected cities other thau the Ci�y from �rea�hin,g a�eparaie agteement with separate
termts.
x
♦?%� 201382 �.A� »niaa