Boston Logan International Airport

Operational Overview

Presentation to the Massport Community Advisory Committee

June 8, 2017

Content

• Overview of Logan

• Runway Designations

• Runway Configurations and Community Overflights

• Appendix – background material

2

22R 22L

27

4L

4R 33L

15R 15L

33R

14

32

9

Based on wind/weather and other operational considerations, the

FAA uses Logan runways in combinations to safely and efficiently

coordinate aircraft landings and takeoffs

3

• The FAA is responsible

for choosing which

runways to use

• For safety, aircraft land

and depart into the wind

• Boston experiences

varied wind/weather

conditions

• Current and forecasted

weather is primary

• Other operational factors

include runway closures,

fleet mix, demand

Runway designations are based on compass headings.

Runways are oriented based on primary weather

patterns. BOS experiences all major weather patterns…

R 4L

R 4R

R 9

R 27

R 15R R 15L

R 33L

R 33R

R 22R R 22L

R 14

R 32 4

…. LAX does not experience varied weather, simple

runway layout…

94%

6%

Runway Use

Westerly

Easterly

5

The FAA utilizes a subset of available runways. In general, the FAA looks to

utilizes 3-runways at a time; primarily 2 for arrivals and 1 for departures

NW

6

7

Aircraft In-flight Create Wake Vortices that can Cause

Problems for Trailing Aircraft

• As a result the FAA Air Traffic Controllers separate aircraft

• The bigger the aircraft the greater the wake it creates

• Having two arrival runways allows for separating larger aircraft from smaller aircraft

• Departing aircraft need to also accommodate wake turbulence

• Bad weather or closing a runway for maintenance or for an emergency reduces the throughput of the airport.

• Mixing smaller aircraft with bigger aircraft increases separation requirements

• Aircraft also have different performance characteristics based on size, weight, and destination and other factors

Boston Logan major runway configurations jet use

(in CY 2016)

SW, 104,129 ,

31%

SE, 12,849, 4%

NE, 114,013,

34%

NW, 102,804,

31%

Jet Flights SW Flow

R27 Arr

R22L Arr & Dep

R22R Dep (& nonjet Arr)

Source: Massport Noise Abatement Office. Annual jet use by runway 8

NW Flow

R27 Arr & Dep

R33L Arr & Dep

R33R Arr

R32 Arr (wind restricted)

SE Flow

R15R Arr

R15L Arr (very limited)

R9 Dep

R14 dep (very limited)

NE Flow

R4R Arr & Dep

R4L Arr (& nonjet dep)

R9 Dep

9

Based on which configuration the FAA selects, different communities

are impacted. Some communities are overflown by multiple

runways under varying operating conditions

Southwest Flow Operating

Configuration – 104,000 Jet Flights

in 2016 (31%)

Arrivals to R 22L and 27

Departures from R 22L and 22R

Runway 22R

Runway 22L

Runway 27

Non-Jet

Arrivals

Departures

10

Southwest Flow Operating Configuration

(104,000 in 2016)

Arrivals to Runways 22L & 27

Departures from Runways 22L & 22R For Period 20-27 Dec 2016 (Jets Only)

Southeast Flow Operating Configuration –

13,000 jet flights in 2016 (4%)

Runway 14

Runway 15R

Runway 9

Arrivals to R 15R, 15L(limited)

Departures from R 15R, 14 (limited) and 9

Limited Throughput- 2 intersecting jet runway configuration; intersection at departure ends;

challenging, long runway departure sequencing; narrow weather window

Non-Jet

Runway 15L

12

Southeast Flow Operating Configuration

(13,000 in 2016)

Arrivals to Runways 15L & 15R

Departures from Runways 09, 14 & 15R For Period 12-19 Dec 2016 (Jets Only)

Northeast Flow Operating

Configuration – 114,000 jet flights in

2016 (34%)

Runway 4L

Runway 4R

Runway 9

Arrivals to Runways 4L and 4R

Departures from R 9, 4L, and 4R

Non-Jet

14

Northeast Flow Operating Configuration

(114,000 in 2016)

Arrivals to Runways 04L & 04R

Departures from Runways 09, 04L & 04R For Period 01-07 Dec 2016 (Jets Only)

Northwest Flow Operating Configuration –

103,000 jet flights in 2016 (31%)

Runway 32

Runway 33L

Runway 27

Arrivals to R 33L, 33R (limited), 32 and 27

Departures from R 33L and 27

Non-Jet

Runway 33R

16

Northwest Flow Operating Configuration

(103,000 jet flights in 2016)

Arrivals to Runways 33L, 33R, 32 & 27

Departures from Runways 33L & 27 For Period 08-13 Dec 2016 (Jets Only)

Late Night, Opposite Direction Configuration

Runway 33L

Runway 15R

Arrivals to R 33L

Departures R 15R

18

Late Night Opposite Direction Configuration Arrivals to Runways 33L

Departures from Runways 15R For period Jan-Dec 2016 (jet only)

Change in Runway Use and Shift in Noise: Example

from BLANS

• Assumption – Reduce use of NE (4s/9) and SW (27/22s) by 2%

each (total -4%) and increase use of NW (33/27/32) by +4%

• Results –

20

DNL Cumulative Change in Population

DNL 50+ +41,815

DNL 60+ +4,221

DNL 65+ +1,269

Source: BLANS Final Report, page 5-35

Appendix Background Material

34

Overflights - Principals

• Safety for passengers and people on the ground

• Weather is the primary factor

– With other operational considerations including fleet mix,

demand, available runways

• Data driven

• Regional perpsective across metropolitan area

• Massport CAC as regional voice

35

26.5

36.3

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1998 2016

507,449

391,222

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

1998 2016

Passengers (millions) Total Aircraft Operations

Although flights fluctuate year to year, over the long term Logan

Airport is serving more passengers on fewer flights

36

Long term trend in Logan flight levels – 25 yr. snapshot

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,0001

99

2

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

Recovery

Trend Line

(Best Fit)

9/11 & Recession

2008 Great Recession

Airline consolidations, move to larger aircraft, higher

load factors

37

Passenger demand is highly correlated to economic

conditions and other socio-economic factors

-18%

-9%

8%

9/11 & Recession 2008 Recession 2015 to 2016

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Change to Logan Passengers

38

Because of Logan’s urban location, Massport has

developed a comprehensive noise abatement program.

• Noise abatement departure

procedures

• Late night opposite direction

operations

• Decibel restriction on R4L

departures and 22R arrivals

• Unidirectional/Wind restriction use

R14/32

• Residential and School

Soundproofing Program

• Engine run-up restrictions

– Limited time

– Specific locations

• Encourage use of single engine

taxiing and reverse thrust

• 24/7 noise complaint line 617-561-

3333

• State of the art Noise Monitoring

System

• Near live flight tracking on website – http://www.massport.com/environment/environmental_re

porting/Noise%20Abatement/overview.aspx

39

Examples of existing noise abatement restrictions…

Engine Run Up Location

Away from communities,

time restricted

Runway 14/32

Unidirectional and

Wind Restricted

Decibel Restrictions

4L takeoffs

22R landings

Towing of aircraft

repositioning

40

Examples of existing noise abatement procedures benefiting

communities. But these may impact other communities…

• R22R and R22L are primary SW

departure runways

• Peak use is during summer

periods

• 2nd busiest departure runway

flow in 2016, 29% of all

departures or about 48,000 jet

flights

• Implemented in the early 1980s

41

Examples of existing noise abatement procedures benefiting

communities (cont.)

• Overnight Head-to-Head Procedure

• Depart 15R, Land 33L, Late night

(about midnight to 5AM)

• However, procedure does result in

overflights to South Shore

• Second CAT III Runway R33L,

alternative option to R4R

42

Runway use, and which community is impacted, is highly

dependent on weather and reflects seasonal variations…

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

R9 R22R R33L R27 Other

Winter (Jan-15)

Year (2014)

Departures by Runway As a % of all Jet Activity

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

R22L R27 R33L R4R Other

Winter (Jan-15)

Year (2014)

Arrivals by Runway As a % of all Jet Activity

43

Case Study (1)- August 2016, FAA selection of

runways and wind direction

22L,

31.9%

4R,

29.4%

27,

22.6%

33L,

9.2%

4L, 5.3%

32, 1.3% 15R,

0.3%

22R,

0.0%

% Aug 2016 Arrivals by Runway

6.9%

4.4%

15.6%

10.5%

8.7% 26.6%

15.8%

11.5%

N - 6.9%

NE -4.4%

E -15.6%

SE - 10.5%

S - 8.7%

SW - 26.6 %

W - 15.8%

NW - 11.5 %

Total Northerly/Easterly Wind = 27%

Aug 2016, Wind Direction

Runway 4R is a NE facing runway

44

Case Study (2) - Use of the NW departure runways in February is

generally particularly heavy, again reflecting the winter weather pattern

R27, 35%

33L, 28%

R9, 16%

R22R, 14%

Other, 8%

Runway Use

Northeast

18%

Southwest

27%

Northwest

54%

Calm

1%

Weather (Wind Direction)

Jet Departures only as a percentage of all departures.

45

In the short term FAA utilization of runways, fluctuates

significantly, primarily due to weather leading to persistent used

over narrow periods

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug YTD

2016

2015

R4R % of Jet Arrivals

Long Term Average 32%

46

Over the long term, FAA’s relative use of some runways has

not changed dramatically (example R4R arrivals)…

Source: Massport, jet activity. 2016

Boston Logan RW4R Arrivals Historical Usage Year Number of Arrivals Percentage of Arrivals

1998 58,996 41%

2006 44,874 30%

2007 47,917 30%

2008 44,876 30%

2009 43,142 31%

2010 40,698 28%

2011 54,395 36%

2012 48,838 34%

2013 42,838 29%

2014 45,072 30%

2015 45,461 29%

2016 51,858 31%

Long Term Average 47,413 32%

47

…or there maybe one time shifts in runway use

that remain due to unique events

• Construction of Runway 14/32 –

balance of use between R33L

departures and R27 departures

• FAA suspension then re-instituting

late night opposite direction

operations- R15R departures/33L

arrivals and other runways

• NTSB based FAA change to

converging runway operations

(CRO)- R22L arrivals versus R27

arrivals

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2010 2015

22L Arr

27 Arr

Example R22L and R27 Arrivals

48

Towns By Complaints and Complainants-2016 Town Complainants Complaints Milton 466 21,796

Hull 220 1,266

Medford 177 1,784

Somerville 153 1,804

Cambridge 128 2,154

Roslindale 103 588

Winthrop 96 271

Arlington 87 1,968

Jamaica Plain 76 434

Belmont 63 501

Other 691 5,480

Total 2,260 38,046

Massport is experiencing a spike in noise complaints…

49

Number of complaints do not necessarily correlate to

number of flights over a community

Number of Flights Community Total 2015

1 East Boston 124,858

2 Winthrop 109,607

3 S. Boston 99,057

4 Hull 90,241

5 Milton 67,747

6 Lynn 59,237

7 Dorchester 52,733

8 Quincy 50,588

9 Randolph 46,099

10 Revere 46,092

11 Winchester 44,416

12 Cohasset 43,310

13 Medford 35,188

14 Chelsea 26,642

15 Belmont 18,369

Note: The data is a representative sample of communities geographically around Boston

Logan. This table IS NOT intended as a complete ranking.

Source: Massport December-2015-RW-shared.pdf HMMH 2016 Analysis. The Overflight

numbers are based on the Jet Runway Use data published by the Noise Office.

50

…or altitude…

Altitude Range Community Aircraft Altitude

Ranges (ft)

1 East Boston 250' - 1,000'

2 Winthrop 350' - 1,000'

3 S. Boston 400’-1,500’

4 Chelsea 450’-2,000’

5 Revere 500’-7,500’

6 Dorchester 700' - 4,000'

7 Quincy 800' - 3,000'

8 Hull 1,500’- 8,000’

8 Medford 1,500' - 9,000'

8 Lynn 1,500’-12,000’

8 Milton 1,500’-12,000’

9 Winchester 2,000' - 12,000'

11 Cohasset 2,500' - 12,000'

12 Randolph 2,500' - 12,000'

13 Belmont 3,500 - 11,000'

Note: The data is a representative sample of communities geographically around Boston

Logan. This table IS NOT intended as a complete ranking.

Source: October 2015 Radar Data HMMH 2016 Analysis. October 2015 radar data was

evaluated over each community to get the ranges. 51

…or noise levels

Noise Range Community DNL

Range 1 Winthrop 59-71

2 Revere 60-68

3 East Boston 48-67

4 Chelsea 52-64

5 Hull 48-60

6 S. Boston 56-59

7 Dorchester 46-58

8 Quincy 41-58

9 Lynn 40-58

10 Milton 43-57

11 Medford 43-56

12 Randolph 40-48

13 Winchester 40-48

14 Cohasset 40-48

15 Belmont 40-46

Note: The data is a representative sample of communities geographically around Boston

Logan. This table IS NOT intended as a complete ranking.

Source: 2015 EDR DNL Noise Data HMMH 2016 Analysis. 2015 EDR DNL data was used

for the noise values. 52

Research shows that the number of noise complaints

often originate from a small number of callers…

George Mason University, Mercatus Center 53

Although raw complaints do provide a snapshot… data can be

skewed. For example, in 2016, ten Milton callers accounted for

63% of the Milton calls. Two individuals accounted for 33% of the

Milton calls

Top 2 Callers,

7,161- 33%

Top 3-10

Callers, 6,483-

30%

All Other

Callers, 8,152,

37%

Total Calls from Milton 2016

By Individual Callers

54