The recent "On the Soap Box" by Sir Richard Branson has thrown up more questions than answers. Whilst he is to be very much applauded for his efforts in highlighting the taxiing problems at major airports and indeed the use of electric trucks for towing purposes, there is considerable evidence that some major operations are far more efficient than others.
Take Heathrow for example. The actual take-off order function is organised by Airport Coordination Ltd (ACL), an independent organisation, bearing in mind that BA has over 40% of the slots. What is very evident is that ACL tries hard to accommodate new arrivals with their specific requirements, although sometimes it takes a few seasons to organise the same landing and take-off times seven days per week.
To put it in perspective sorting out slots is not easy for airlines and airports. It all has to be accommodated within the window of operations if the airport is not 24 hours. There might be problems at the other end also associated with departure/arrival times. Where there are no restrictions, in India for example, this might mean departing in the middle of the night. From Hong Kong it gets even more complex with the midnight change of date. People have been known to book the wrong flight for their dawn arrival the next morning.
Even with a single runway clever use of the concrete can produce remarkable results. London City Airport started with just 15 movements per hour but with a three aircraft holding point and a short runway (the aircraft don't spend much time getting airborne). This number is now regularly doubled. At Gatwick, admittedly with a much greater holding area but with large aircraft that take time to get off the ground, over 40 movements per hour have been recorded.
Which brings us to the situation at New York-Kennedy and its four runways, an airport with 350,000 aircraft movements (take offs and landings) in 2005, as against Heathrow's 477,000. Why is it at JFK some planes can be held on the apron with engines running for up to 90 minutes whilst at the London operation if you are not airborne within 15 minutes something is wrong? In fact at JFK you can spend more time on the ground than in the air.
Sir Richard Branson, Willie Walsh, and others would like to know. Their problem is of course political too. It is difficult to criticise a host airport let alone a host country.
Kennedy sits in the middle of a very complex airport group, all owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Within JFK's local airspace are Newark and La Guardia both with competing aircraft. In the early evening the domestic traffic reaches a crescendo just at the same time as the European-bound planes need to get away in order to make their dawn rendezvous the other side of the Atlantic. To make matters worse the airspace is controlled not by the airports but by the FAA. JFK for instance has nine terminals, for the most part individually run by airlines who try to use the gates and space as efficiently as possible. However once the air bridge is uncoupled control of the aircraft reverts to the government authority. And here is the problem: lack of co-ordination between the two sets of controllers.
The taxiing time for aircraft at Kennedy needs to be brought down to the same as Heathrow. It's an environmental, economical and social issue. True that during the waiting period some airlines open up the bar, but some don't. Maybe the ACL solution is not perfect for the United States and no doubt it would need legislation for it to be enforced. The idea of the FAA and airlines getting together is hardly new. And any changes of regular schedules will have serious knock on effects. But something has to de done about the waiting at Kennedy. And quickly.