urbanMSP

The B717s are actually a bit quieter than the DC-9s, however most of the planes you are seeing are their older siblings the MD-88s and MD-90s. Still powered by the JT8D engines that made the DC-9s soooo loud.

Per wikipedia:

The MD-90 is a mid-size, medium-range airliner that was developed from the MD-80 series. It is a 5 feet (1.5 m) longer, updated version of the MD-88 with similar electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and more powerful, quieter and fuel efficient IAE V2500 engines instead of the JT8D engines, which power the MD-80 series. This made the MD-90 the first derivative variant of the DC-9 to use a high-bypass turbofan engine.

To really dumb everything down, looking ahead the next two decades, is relief for the affected neighborhoods more likely to come sooner from fewer daily flights (likely due to higher fuel prices) or from quieter planes? Which is more significant? Which is more realistic in the near term?

Just my opinion here, but I don't know that "relief" is really in the cards. Even if all of the planes get significantly quieter, it's still going to bother people, especially if you live very close to the airport. And I'd speculate that larger planes will just hold the number of operations as roughly constant as passenger numbers increase over time, not decrease operations. We have a busy airport in the middle of a dense urban environment, and it's not going away. It will impact people.

But is it fair that the impacts today are significantly and measurably more than the impacts 5 years ago, or the impacts that determined mitigation, or the impacts that happened under airport operations that were much less likely to cause a disaster for the traveling public?

The B717s are actually a bit quieter than the DC-9s, however most of the planes you are seeing are their older siblings the MD-88s and MD-90s. Still powered by the JT8D engines that made the DC-9s soooo loud.

Per wikipedia:

The MD-90 is a mid-size, medium-range airliner that was developed from the MD-80 series. It is a 5 feet (1.5 m) longer, updated version of the MD-88 with similar electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and more powerful, quieter and fuel efficient IAE V2500 engines instead of the JT8D engines, which power the MD-80 series. This made the MD-90 the first derivative variant of the DC-9 to use a high-bypass turbofan engine.

Rats, I was only half right. In my defense I was thinking of the MD-80 and MD-88

Didn't realize we were talking about fair.

I'd say that it's fair that the terms of the consent decree are applied to changing conditions, so if a house warrants noise mitigation based on changing flight paths, it should receive them.

As for the dirty secrets and the impending disaster, I think I'll just let that lie.

Having grown up in St. Louis I find it humorous that people here buy a house in the takeoff and landing zone of a major international airport (it was 15th busiest in the world in 1999, if I recall correctly, whereas now it's off the top 30) and then complain about it and talk about what's "fair" for the airport to give them. I don't object to the MAC being persuaded to upgrade people's houses, but the South Minneapolis entitlement about what's "fair" just seems absurd to me. If MSP wasn't a major airport when you bought your house, sure. But if you bought the house in the era where it had a top-30 world ranking then I don't think it's reasonable to talk about what's "FAIR" for the airport to do. You bought the house.

And for the record, I bought *my* house in 2000 in the edge of the takeoff and landing pattern, no mitigation. I bought it knowingly and am fine with that.

The problem is that the DNL contours are no longer legitimate due to changing operations. I bought a home outside 65 DNL, and I heavily researched runway operations. Then a year later the departure procedures were fundamentally altered in a way that distributes greater noise outside areas covered by the consent decree, an operational pattern that was completely new.

It's the equivalent of putting 35W in and then when the folks on 2nd and Stevens complain about significant net-new environmental impacts, saying to them "well you knew there was pavement in front of your home when you bought it."

But all of that aside, the primary concern is safety. By MAC's own admissions in the CIP process, current operations are unsafe. And the FAA has been asking them to answer to it.

Does anybody know when MSP will start expanding their gate count? It seems like they are doing a little shuffling with a couple of airlines between the two terminals. It seems like Frontier, Sun Country, Southwest and Spirit would like to expand here but there aren't any gates for them to proceed. Maybe that's the reason Jet Blue hasn't come in yet. You would think that if there is demand that they would start building additional gates and soon. Also heard rumors that Korean and Emirites wants to come in here but then again it's just that.

Does anybody know when MSP will start expanding their gate count? It seems like they are doing a little shuffling with a couple of airlines between the two terminals. It seems like Frontier, Sun Country, Southwest and Spirit would like to expand here but there aren't any gates for them to proceed. Maybe that's the reason Jet Blue hasn't come in yet. You would think that if there is demand that they would start building additional gates and soon. Also heard rumors that Korean and Emirites wants to come in here but then again it's just that.

Spirit Airlines is moving to T-1 in January. That really only frees up H6 and part-time use of H10. However, T-2 will see gates 11-13b built in 2015 (per MAC documents). They are planning in 2018 to build 14-16 at T-2. Sometime in the future beyond 2018, MAC will explore 17-26 (might be 27) to be built at T-2. That is quite the expansion when you consider 8+ flights per day per gate usage. An airline such as Sun Country, Southwest, or others could really use those gates for capacity growth. However, there is that old plan out there seeking to move all non-Sky Team airlines to T2. I believe it is still in the cards, but not approved by MAC at this point.

The problem is that the DNL contours are no longer legitimate due to changing operations. I bought a home outside 65 DNL, and I heavily researched runway operations. Then a year later the departure procedures were fundamentally altered in a way that distributes greater noise outside areas covered by the consent decree, an operational pattern that was completely new.

It's the equivalent of putting 35W in and then when the folks on 2nd and Stevens complain about significant net-new environmental impacts, saying to them "well you knew there was pavement in front of your home when you bought it."

But all of that aside, the primary concern is safety. By MAC's own admissions in the CIP process, current operations are unsafe. And the FAA has been asking them to answer to it.

Second what Matt is saying. Went the opposite way on me, when I first moved here in 2009, takeoffs were more frequent over my house, whereas now they are much less frequent. They have shifted and there's great variation even block to block depending on where you live.

Yeah, sure, we accept some risk by living near the airport, but I could see how people near the airport could have a hard time with shifting operations too.

Not sure if anyone is interested in this kind of news, but on Sunday 11/30 Delta is gonna be flying two 747-400's domestically between MSP & ATL. One coming in at about 630am and leaving around 10am the other coming in around 145pm and leaving about 530pm. Granted, that's one of the busiest travel days of the year, but its great to see that kind of demand.

You can guarantee those 744s will be jam-packed with non-revs. The 7:30am departure to MSP has about 30 unsold seats.

DL will be resuming MSP-HNL on a seasonal basis per MAC's recent meeting minutes. They had been offering incentives.

^confirmed. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-add ... 00812.html

Moving the airport is a non-starter given the relative plateau of air travel demand, the fragility of the whole system post-9/11, and the insane fight it would be to expropriate residents. That's what largely took down the idea during the dual-track process in the 1990s, and I'll have to look but I'm fairly certain current law prohibits it.

Also, I have a tour of the tower with an FAA administrator on Monday. Any questions for them re: MSP operations?

What are they hoping for to connect the proposed hotel with the LRT and other mass transit options? Shuttle? Tunnel? Skyway? If the hotel is a success do they see trying to put in more, or will just it be one and done? I suppose the FAA doesn't have a say on hotel construction though...

Yes, that would be a question for MAC. A year or two ago, there was a plan to build a micro-hotel on the side of the ramps facing the main terminal (basically the left side as you're on the dropoff lanes) but that didn't happen. But the primary hotel plans have always included a hotel over the exit lanes for the parking garage, near where the exit roadway curves to meet the entrance roadway. This site places the hotel adjacent to the Ground Transportation Center at the east side of the landside tramway, and right above the LRT station.

I would suspect that eventually, they would want to extend the tram that runs underneath the parking ramps all of the way out to the hotel (they'll be building new parking structures between the hotel and the existing vertical circulation for the LRT that will also need to be served).

The skyway shown between the hotel and the C concourse doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- do they really expect TSA to run a security checkpoint for the slow trickle of people using that connection?

This site places the hotel adjacent to the Ground Transportation Center at the east side of the landside tramway, and right above the LRT station.

No, the hotel site is further out than that -- from the inbound roadway, it would be before the current USPS building.