Idea Transcript
Airport Master Plan Update PAC/TAC Meeting No.1 02.18.14
Meeting Minutes - Technical Advisory Committee Start time – 1:30 p.m.
The Technical Advisory Committee meeting presentation consisted of an in-depth overview of the Inventory/Existing Conditions and Aviation Demand Forecast Chapters. The meeting minutes include comments and discussion specific to the meeting. The sign-in sheet and complete presentation has been attached for reference. Meeting Begins
Mr. Glenn Januska explained the master plan process and its purpose. Introductions were conducted with all attendees sharing their agency/business they represented.
name
and
Project Overview and Schedule
Mr. Becker explained the objectives of the project including the key goals of the Master Plan Update. Mr. Becker expanded on the primary topics to be addressed in the Master Plan Update including Airport Geographic Information System (AGIS). Mr. Becker provided an overview of the various phases of the project as well as the project schedule. o FAA review of the Forecast and Airport Layout Plan, were noted. Mr. Becker explained the roles of the PAC and TAC, as well as how the committees’ involvement supports the project.
Inventory/Existing Conditions
1
Ms. Henderson provided an overview of the Airport’s background, airfield and landside facilities, and support facilities. o Mr. Holmquist commented that in regards to the fuel facilities, 10,000 gallons of diesel is located at the fuel farm and 5,000 gallons of off road diesel is located by the maintenance building. o Mr. Holmquist also stated that UPS is located by Hangar 4 and that Corporate Air is for FedEx. o Mr. Januska commented that the quick response ARFF vehicle was not listed in the presentation. o It was noted (and later verified) that these corrections to the presentation were correct in the written report. Ms. Henderson discussed the 2013 Airport Land Use Review study recently completed by Jviation, and explained the non-aeronautical and aeronautical areas displayed on the land use map. Ms. Henderson described the environmental elements of significance that are present on the Airport that will be taken into account during the study.
Airport Master Plan Update PAC/TAC Meeting No.1 02.18.14 Aviation Forecast
2
Mr. Becker provided a synopsis of the catchment area of the Airport as well as the current socioeconomic drivers of air service. A brief description of the historical time periods of air service at Casper was overviewed. Mr. Becker discussed the primary catchment area and factors influencing passenger air service. He discussed the leakage to Denver as well as the cost of Casper to Denver fares compared to other Wyoming airports. Mr. Becker reviewed the historical data of passenger activity at the Airport. He explained that the most recent data, 2013, was used for the forecast. o Mr. Holmquist asked when the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) was last conducted. Mr. Becker explained that the 2012 TAF was created using historical data through 2011, and 2012 was the first year forecasted. Mr. Becker described the reason the FAA TAF was adjusted and followed with a describing the two methods used to create alternative forecast scenarios: o A Booking Data scenario showing the potential possible if all booked passengers flew from Casper. o A New Routes scenario showing the potential of new routes to large hubs such as Chicago or Houston. Mr. Becker summarized the passenger forecast as a range of potential growth within the planning period that the master plan must account for in the facility requirements. o This range was shown to be roughly 155,000 to 245,000 passengers within the 20-year planning period. Mr. Maiman provided an overview on aircraft operations. There was discussion among the group of how operations fluctuate. It was also identified that historical operations do not account for “after-hours” flights, those that occur after the ATCT is in operation; however, the forecast does. Mr. Maiman provided an overview of the cargo operations forecast, based aircraft forecast, and instrument operations forecast. o The group discussed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Mr. Becker stated that UAV aircraft were not counted within the forecast. Mr. John Sweeney explained that the FAA does not currently count UAV’s as operations at an airport. He stated that the FAA is in the process of deciding how to group UAV’s. o The group also discussed what defines based aircraft and how they are counted. Mr. Januska noted that the inventory of based aircraft is likely the most accurate count of based aircraft the Airport has had. Mr. Becker discussed the Airport’s past, present, and future design aircraft. o It was noted that the combination of the current two most demanding aircraft (MD-83 and A310) make up the current design aircraft specifications (D-IV). Mr. Becker gave a summary of the forecast and explained that the forecast will be sent to the FAA for review and approval.
Airport Master Plan Update PAC/TAC Meeting No.1 02.18.14 Questions and Comments
The next steps of the project were discussed and the meeting was opened up for further questions and discussion. o Mr. Holmquist asked if the team had examined the energy industry and forecasted when the next downturn would happen. Mr. Becker stated that downturns in the economy based off a particular industry are not possible to accurately predict. He added that all current economic indicators suggest growth in the near term, and that was taken into consideration in the forecast. o Mr. Justin Carver asked if the operations forecast takes into account anomalies such as firefighting related increases in operations. Mr. Becker stated that the methodology used for the forecast does account for anomalies, and in general our forecast is focused on longterm trends. o Mr. Sweeney stated that he was comfortable with the forecast and asked for the groups input on the forecast. He stated he didn’t see any problems with the forecast as is except that he thought the operations forecast appeared a bit high, albeit not drastic enough to require a change or prevent approval. Discussion followed which conveyed a general feeling of likely future growth. Mr. Becker requested that any suggestions requiring critical changes be provided within the next two weeks, and that non-critical changes be provided within the next 45 days. Mr. Sweeney stated that the approval of the forecast should take about one week pending any changes the group makes. Mr. Goss with the Veterans Museum introduced himself and Mr. Douglas Cubbison, the Museum’s curator. Mr. Goss provided an overview of the Museum’s growing attendance record and recent activity. o Discussion followed about the Museum’s role in the programmatic agreement. o Mr. Becker stated that he and Natalie Lord (from HPA) would be in contact with Mr. Goss and Mr. Cubbison soon.
Meeting Adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
3
Airport Master Plan Update PAC/TAC Meeting No.1 02.18.14
Meeting Minutes - Public Advisory Committee Start time – 4:30 p.m.
The Public Advisory Committee meeting consisted of the same slide presentation and material provided in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting; however, the material was discussed at a higher level and the meeting was structured in as an informal work session. For ease of reading and reference, the meeting minutes include comments and discussion specific to the meeting. Meeting Begins
Mr. Januska kicked off the meeting. Introductions were conducted with everyone explaining their role and their name.
Project Overview and Schedule
Mr. Becker presented a project overview and the project schedule. Mr. Becker noted that in the previous meeting, Mr. Sweeney with the FAA suggested that he would be able to approve the forecasts within one week of submittal, pending any changes.
Existing Conditions
4
Ms. Leah Henderson discussed the Inventory/Existing Conditions. There was discussion about the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). o Ms. Henderson explained that the FTZ is not active because there currently is no business using it. She explained that there has been interest in the FTZ in the past, and that an FTZ can provide cost saving for companies who ship materials and goods between the U.S. and other countries. Mr. H.H. “Buck” King asked why the FAA control tower was placed so close to the runways. o Mr. Becker explained the tower was most likely built where it was most convenient at the time. He described how the tower’s current location would now be better served by aircraft hangars, and that the Master Plan Update will be exploring possibilities for new locations. Mr. Januska discussed the importance of planning for and preserving land for a new tower if a new location is identified during the study. Mr. Becker mentioned that the study would evaluate the tower’s existing location and three other sites on the airfield. In regards to land use, Mr. Becker explained that future development would take place within the area already identified for such use. o Mr. Januska described the importance of having clearly defined areas for aeronautical and non-aeronautical land uses. He explained how important it is for the Airport to have clearly defined non-aeronautical land use areas, and how these areas must be in place before there can be non-aeronautical development. Ms. Henderson discussed the ongoing Wildlife Hazard Assessment. o There was discussion about the various types of wildlife seen on the Airport in recent years. Mr. King mentioned the Airport’s old restaurant and asked if there is currently a restaurant.
Airport Master Plan Update PAC/TAC Meeting No.1 02.18.14 o
Mr. Januska answered that there is currently no restaurant. Mr. Januska and Mr. Becker explained the various reasons that a full service restaurant is likely not a profitable business venture in today’s Airport environment in Casper.
Aviation Forecast
Mr. Becker continued the presentation and discussed the passenger enplanement forecast. Mr. McCreight asked if the leakage to Denver is higher or lower than expected. o Mr. Becker answered that the number is higher than preferable when compared to other airports nationally. o Mr. Januska stated that a large contributor to the leakage is the entrance of Southwest Airlines in Denver which further lowered Denver’s fares. He mentioned that the leakage is primarily vacation and tourist travelers. o Ms. Henderson stated that all airport’s around Wyoming struggle with leakage to Denver. The group discussed the terminal building’s ability to accommodate growth in passenger enplanements. o Mr. Becker told the group that he believed the terminal’s envelope should generally be able to accommodate the forecasted number of future passengers. Mr. Maiman continued the presentation and provided an overview of the aviation activity forecasts. o Mr. Becker mentioned that the TAC had thought that the operations forecast might be high. o Mr. Januska said that even if the forecast is a little high, it doesn’t suggest that anything needs to be built because capacity won’t be affected. o Mr. McCreight asked who builds hangars, airports or private developers. Mr. Januska mentioned that airports and private developers both do, and that he prefers to lease land to a developer who builds them. Mr. Becker further discussed how the Master Plan Update would provide a layout plan to accommodate future aircraft hangars. o Mr. King asked if piston aircraft are disappearing. Mr. Becker explained the current state of General Aviation (GA). He stated that while GA is completely different than it was a few decades ago, small GA is a staple of American aviation and will remain a part of the aviation industry. Mr. Becker finished the presentation and discussed the Airport’s design aircraft, the forecast summary, and the next steps of the project. o Mr. Januska mentioned that Allegiant had asked about the Airport’s ability to accommodate Boeing 757 aircraft in the future, and noted that the 757 is no more demanding than the current design aircraft. o Mr. Becker mentioned the fact that the FAA had given verbal confirmation in the previous meeting that the forecast would likely be approved within one week of submittal if no drastic changes were made. Mr. Becker requested that any suggestions that would require critical changes be provided within the next two weeks, and that non-critical changes be provided within the next 45 days.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
5