Plane Conversations

There is an MU-2 outside my window right now and those Garrett engines are so loud that, in the words of my first grade teacher Sister Paula, I can’t hear myself think. 

Airplanes are noisy.  No kidding, right?  That’s hardly news and it’s certainly no surprise.  Since airplanes are noisy, it follows then, that places they frequent – airports – are noisy, as well.  Again, no surprise there.  What continues to be a surprise to me are noise complaints made by people who live near airports.

What would you say if I told you that I bought a terrific little house next to a railroad track and that I got it at a steal?  You’d probably question my sanity since there are sure to be really noisy trains barreling along the tracks at all hours, right?  Now what would you say if I told you that I was planning on petitioning or even suing the railroad company to make their trains quieter and to run them only during daylight hours?  Does that even make sense?  I bought a house next to a pre-existing railroad track, the existence of which I unquestionably knew, and now I demand that the railroad operate according to my preferences?  I would be laughed out of the courtroom.  Or would I?

This situation happens every day with airports all over the United States and Europe.

Developers buy undesirable land near noisy airports, build houses all over the land, and sell the houses at attractive prices.  The new homeowners, forgetting the reason they got such a good deal on the house, then demand that the airport conform to their preferences – and the city councils and courts support the homeowners.

Airports don’t exist in a vacuum - I know that - and we all need to “go along to get along.”  However, there must be some consideration for the airports which were in existence prior to development and the economic contributions of those airports.  For instance, Atlanta’s DeKalb-Peachtree airport started it’s life in 1941, operated as a Naval Air Station as well as a general aviation airport and is currently the second busiest airport in the state of Georgia with 246,002 operations recorded in 2009.  Housing development in the area saw massive increases in the 1950s, after the airport was established.  At this time, the airport has a “voluntary” curfew between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM.  I emphasize voluntary because it is clear from the airport’s own literature that the county would make the curfew mandatory if only the FAA would let them.  Exemptions are made for medical flights but, any other flight operating at the airport during curfew hours will receive a letter inviting the operator “without compromising safety.. [to] review its operating practices and perhaps modify its procedures to keep this from happening again.”  Basically, they invite the operator not to come back during curfew, reserving the right to invite the the operator not to come back at all.

Perhaps the most aggressive noise abatement policies are in Santa Monica, California, and in Naples, Florida, which were among the first (if not the first) to prohibit certain types of aircraft from operating into their fields at any time of day.  Naples, which is a public airport operated by the City of Naples Airport Authority, has its hands full these days dealing with an anti-airport group.  The situation has become emotionally charged and really contentious there.  The airport receives federal funding, yet the neighbors want to dictate how and when the facilities may be used.   Try doing that with an interstate or railroad. 

The Mu-2 is gone, but my ears are still buzzing; so, I sympathize with people who live with the noise.  However, because I know that airplanes are  noisy, I didn’t buy a house right next to an airport.  And I don’t have sympathy for the people who did, then proceeded to complain about a situation they entered into voluntarily.

Click on pen to

Tom Belden, a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, in a July 12 article, argues that the country’s airlines should be considered a “public good” and thus be subjected to regulation by the federal government for issues concerning customer service and pricing policies.

MIT Research Engineer and Aviation Consultant Bill Swelbar, in his blog post responding to that article, states that the airline industry is not a “public good.”

Quoting from Swelbar’s blog post:

“The airline industry does not fit the economist definition of a “public good”.  But they do bring a lot of good to publics of all sizes.  More taxes, fees and regulation will only ensure that communities will suffer a death by a thousand paper cuts because increased airline costs have to eventually mean fewer airports served.”

Both of these positions deserve consideration, and it is worth your time to read their stated positions. I will lean heavily to the side of Bill Swelbar on this issue.

All of us would agree that regulating safety and security in the aviation industry is good for both the industry and the traveling public. However, when it comes to regulating customer service, the federal government has gone too far.

I understand a “public good” definition when it comes to the electricity flowing to my house because I don’t have a choice about which electric company to use. I don’t see how that applies to airlines when the consumers do have a choice.

The consumer can choose which airline they fly with, or they can choose to not fly the airlines at all.

This country is fortunate to have one of the most developed road systems in the world and most of us can get in our automobiles and safely and quickly go anywhere in the country. In the densely populated areas of the country the developed rail systems provide an additional mass transit alternative to air travel. All these are options for travel if we don’t want to fly on a bad airline.

Social technology has provided an excellent vetting system for rewarding and punishing companies based on the markets perception of their service. Feedback is now instantaneous. Look at how social media savvy airlines like JetBlue use twitter to respond to customer service issues.

By having a choice, and allowing the free market to work it out, the good actors will be rewarded and the bad actors will be punished.

The free market will drive better airline customer service, and more efficient solutions to travel, not the government.

Last but not least, business and private aviation offers the choice for us to fly on our own schedule directly to the destination.  With over 5,000 airports to choose from, the travelers get ten times more destination choices than they get with the airlines

Click on pen to

Over the last seven years we have been reading about, watching and waiting for the next generation of efficient private jets to arrive.  Finally, they are here with a promise of more to follow.

There have been many starts and stops and failures along the way.  Names like Eclipse and Adam Aircraft showed great promise but could not deliver or passed out before crossing the finish line of the race.

Innovation comes at a high price in our business and is not for the faint hearted.  Billions of dollars have been invested in the industry and most of it has vanished.

Now to the Good News:

Two industry giants have made it across the finish line.  Cessna with their Mustang and Embraer with the Phenom 100.

The aircraft that is most impressive is the Phenom 100 manufactured by the Brazilian company Embraer, known for its rugged and efficient regional airliners.  It is fascinating to me that, possibly for the first time in our industry, a manufacturer of airliners made the decision to step into the private jet manufacturing business.  Airline manufacturers have to make aircraft that are reliable and efficient.  The airlines who buy their product to put into service have very little tolerance for failure when it comes to durability,  reliability and after market support.  Additionally, they demand an aircraft that is cost-efficient. Airlines live and die on the cost per seat mile and the manufacturers know they have to deliver or else. There is no brand loyalty. Its all about the money.

Take a company like Embraer who has prospered in the airliner environment and transfer the knowledge of design, production and after-market service  into the business jet world, and you get a business jet that looks like a private jet but is built like an airliner.  When I see this aircraft up close the first words that come to mind when comparing to other light jets are rugged, solid and  yes, even good looking.  You don’t have to compromise  an aircraft’s good looks for durability in our business.

The Phenom 100 and subsequent models to follow (Phenom 300) are  designed to last more than a lifetime of average use in the private jet industry.  Starting from a clean sheet of paper and utilizing the best design technology available to only the likes of Boeing and Airbus, the engineers in Brazil have designed an airframe that is sleek, fuel efficient and has safe flight characteristics, making it easy to fly (for those jet owners who fly themselves).  Additionally they listened to the market and employed BMW Design Works to work with them on the interior design of the cabin finishes and ergonomics.  And last but not least, they employed the latest technology available to give the pilot all the tools that a new generation airliner has in a simple and user-friendly presentation.

Be on the look out for the Phenom series of light jet aircraft – these guys are here to stay and they are innovating.  Their aircraft will be a major player in the innovation of our industry to make the private jet more affordable to more travelers.

Click on pen to