BobZ

I see wat you did there. Bra....voh.

iaflyer

For a while I worked for a company who did contracts for the FAA for noise abatement studies as part of their Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. We used computer modeling to determine noise maps, using existing scheduled flights and aircraft types at that airport. A B737-200 was noisier than a B737-800 for example. Maps like this were developed:





We also modeled the departure tracks, or noise abatement tracks for the airports studied. Here at Newark for example, if you look at the departures to the south, you can see the turn westward just S of Elizabeth. Houses within a certain db level were purchased by the FAA and torn down, and houses further away received noise proofing.


Here is a link to the Newark noise maps: Final Noise Exposure Map Report - EWR Airport


While today's jets are quieter than older ones, they still make noise. Also, Part 150 studies aren't done very often, maybe every 10-15 years so the data to allow a change to a noise abatement procedure takes a while. The biggest issue is that changing a departure moves the noise from one set of people to another - it is very politically charged and generally can't get done. So the noise abatement procedures don't change.


Here's a list from the FAA of big airports and links to their noise abatement pages: https://www.faa.gov/airports/environ...exposure_maps/

gloopy

I get all that. But in today's world of the carbon religion paranoia, the places that go ballistic the most about that are the same places that demand less efficient tracks for noise, and the noise itself is mostly perception. No "community" should have the right to regulate noise if it comes from a plane versus the same db from other sources.

The vast majority of the time now, if you hear a plane its barely audibile compared to school busses and mail trucks and garbage trucks and lawnmowers and weed wackers and sometimes even chirping birds. Nobody should be able to adjust ground tracks of planes for that just because they hear something they can eventually attribute to being an airplane because of stupid preconceptions from the 1970's.

ShooterMcGavin

It’s easy to claim no cancels when you make up your own metrics. Flight goes mechanical,it cancels and is ran the next day as an “extra section”. Still counts for CCF. They call no cancel days “brand days”

ESQ702

Good grief. I hope this isn’t that common. I’d love to know how much Delta spends on baloney like this.

sailingfun

It’s not how much they spend, it’s how much they make.

notEnuf

This is how they can say “we’ll get you there and 99.9999% on time” when they make the pitch to corporate clients. Think HVCs and revenue premium and this is a trivial expense for 15% more than the other guy for every seat we sell. They are actually doing it right. Now, how much they share with me... well that’s not right or at best TBD.

theUpsideDown

I guess the practice brings down the profit sharing a little, but if it attracts high end customers and replaces money taken by the "fly them empty" policy, who cares if it's kinda fake? It seems like I'm missing a big piece of the puzzle for as many pilots that are mad. Anyone see what I'm saying?

RAH RAH REE

Well they cancelled a SDF to ATL flight yesterday. So much for 100%!

notEnuf

I’d argue that it actually increases the profits. They need those numbers and the NPS to point to in the sales department. Sales people are paid commission and target bonuses for a reason. It is a waste and seems counter intuitive though. The win/win is that someone was paid to fly the leg originally and then someone else was paid to complete the leg maybe even at double pay.

Yes, you are correct on the cost and I don’t like adding CO2 to the atmosphere unnecessarily but at least we are replacing JT8Ds with PW1500Gs.