Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) is the 22nd busiest airport in North America in terms of passenger traffic, increasing 4.6 percent to 24.6 million in 2014. The number of operations increased 1.1 percent from 2013, to 258,344. In 2014, FLL was the 45th busiest airport in North America in terms of cargo volume, with 77,967 metric tons moving through its facilities, an increase of 2.2 percent. The top four air carriers in terms of average daily domestic operations are JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and Delta Air Lines.
All airport information shown above is reported by Calendar Year (CY).
NextGen Capabilities
This timeline reflects programmatic milestones, and excludes capabilities implemented across the National Airspace System.
Information as of September 15, 2016.
Deployment of Time Based Flow Management (TBFM)
What is Time Based Flow Management?
Time Based Flow Management (TBFM) is a capability used to manage traffic flows by metering, or sequencing aircraft to their arrival airport. Through TBFM, an automation system uses a schedule of runway assignments and landing times to sequence inbound flights, and allocates delays to various segments of each flight in order to meet the assigned schedule. TBFM is administered by traffic managers at the Air Route Traffic Control Center or Terminal Radar Approach Control facility of the arrival airport. For some airports, TBFM is used routinely, while at others it is used as needed.
TBFM provides four time-based metering functions:
- Arrival management/Situational awareness to inform traffic managers of projected arrival demand
- Airborne metering to sequence flights, and provide controllers with allocated delay assignments for each flight to meet the proposed schedule
- Departure scheduling to provide increased management of arrival demand by assigning delays to flights at their origin airports
- En route departure capability to efficiently integrate departures into overhead en route streams
TBFM enables the more efficient use of available capacity by tailoring the allocation of delays to individual flights, thereby reducing the need for less efficient "one-size-fits-all" techniques such as Miles-in-Trail restrictions. In turn, this can reduce total aircraft delays, and transfer delays to more fuel efficient phases of flight, such as on the ground or at higher altitudes. Importantly, the transfer of delays out of the terminal approach area positions inbound flights to take advantage of Optimized Profile Descent procedures, where these have been implemented. The use of TBFM varies significantly by location and reflects differences in operating environments and air traffic management strategies.
When was it implemented?
A predecessor of Time Based Flow Management called Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) was developed and implemented in the 1990s. TMA was deployed to all 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers by 2007, and was modernized as TBFM in 2013 as a result of a major system re-architecture.
When is it used?
Traffic managers regularly use Time Based Flow Management airborne metering to manage heavy winter traffic into Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. This trend started in the winter of 2012 in a concerted, strategic effort to mitigate the closure of two runways during a major runway extension project.
How did it impact operations?
The FAA conducted an operational assessment of two Time Based Flow Management (TBFM) functions, airborne metering and departure scheduling, at eight airports (four per function) where these techniques are widely used, including Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport due to its routine use of airborne metering. The locations were selected based on how frequently each function is used alone and in combination, so as to isolate the impacts of the function in question; for this reason results cannot be taken to be representative of impacts at other locations.
For each function, the assessment looked at the impact on arrival and airborne delays as indicators of how efficiently the available capacity was used. FAA's assessment of flights between July 2011 and December 2013 found:
- For three of four airports studied that use Departure Scheduling, arrivals tended to experience 1.0 to 1.3 minutes less of arrival delay when the facility was using TBFM to schedule departures
- With few exceptions, departure scheduling also significantly reduced the variability of delays
- There is an 8 to 10-minute difference between the average arrival delay for metered flights and those subject to Miles-in-Trail (MIT) restrictions alone, for the four airports studied. It is unclear, however, how much of this difference can be attributed exclusively to TBFM because much of the difference occurs on the ground, beyond the immediate scope of TBFM's influence.
- Metered flights also experienced about a minute less airborne delay than those subject to MIT restrictions, as well as less extreme and more predictable airborne delays
Click here for a full description of the NextGen Operational Performance Assessment.
What is the value of this improvement?
The FAA estimates the combined reductions in aircraft delays for the eight airports evaluated translated to about $640 million in savings between 2011 and 2014 (expressed in 2015 dollars). These savings reflect reduced operating costs to airlines of $209 million, and time savings to passengers valued at over $430 million. The estimate applies the average observed per-flight delay savings to the base of arrivals managed by airborne metering or departure scheduling, in accordance with FAA's performance assessment.
Where else is it implemented?
Time Based Flow Management (TBFM) is deployed at 93 facilities across the National Airspace System (NAS), including 20 en route, 28 terminal and 45 tower facilities. It is deployed at all but two of the Core 30 airports, with Tampa International Airport (TPA) and Honolulu International Airport (HNL) as the two exceptions.
Additional information is available on the NextGen Portfolio page.
ScorecardView as Charts
The following metrics summarize performance over a large set of diverse operations at this location. As such, their purpose is to reflect general trends as experienced by aircraft operators and passengers, without regard to their underlying drivers. For this reason, metric values should not be compared to operational impacts attributed to specific NextGen capabilities, where these are provided.
All Information below is in Fiscal Years (October 1 - September 30).
Performance Indicator (FY) | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average Gate Arrival Delay
Minutes per Flight During reportable hours, the yearly average of the difference between the Actual Gate-In Time and the Scheduled Gate-In Time for flights to the selected airport from any of the ASPM airports. The delay for each fiscal year (FY) is calculated based on the 0.5th — 99.5th percentile of the distributions for the year. Flights may depart outside reportable hours, but must arrive during them. The reportable hours vary by airport. |
1.4 | 1.0 | 2.3 | -0.5 | 1.2 | 4.3 | -2.6 |
Average Number of Level-offs per Flight
Counts per Flight The count of level-offs as flights descend from cruise altitudes to the arrival airport, averaged for the fiscal year. |
1 | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 |
Distance in Level Flight from Top of Descent to Runway Threshold
Nautical Miles per Flight The distance flown during level-off segments as flights descend from cruise altitudes to the arrival airport, averaged for the fiscal year (FY). |
1 | 1 | 32.0 | 32.8 | 35.0 | 36.0 | 32.3 |
Effective Gate-to-Gate Time
Minutes per Flight During reportable hours, the difference between the Actual Gate-In Time at the destination (selected) airport and the Scheduled Gate-Out Time at the origin airport. Flights may depart outside reportable hours, but must arrive during them. The reportable hours vary by airport and the results are reported by fiscal year (FY). |
156.0 | 157.1 | 160.7 | 161.4 | 170.0 | 174.5 | 170.7 |
Taxi-In Time
Minutes per Flight During reportable hours, the yearly average of the difference between Wheels-On Time and Gate-In Time for flights arriving at the selected airport from any of the Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) airports. Flights may depart outside reportable hours, but must arrive during them. The reportable hours vary by airport. |
5.1 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.8 |
Taxi-Out Time
Minutes per Flight During reportable hours, the yearly average of the difference between Gate-Out Time and Wheels-Off Time for flights from the selected airport to any of the ASPM airports. Flights must depart during reportable hours, but may arrive outside them. The reportable hours vary by airport. |
16.9 | 16.2 | 17.0 | 16.9 | 17.9 | 17.4 | 15.3 |
1 Consistent data for the time period prior to FY 2011 are not available. |
As described by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), efficiency addresses the operational and economic cost-effectiveness of gate-to-gate flight operations from a single-flight perspective. In all phases of flight, airspace users want to depart and arrive at the times they select and fly the trajectory they determine to be optimum.
Performance Indicator (FY) | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average Daily Capacity
Number of Operations During reportable hours, the average daily sum of the Airport Departure Rate (ADR) and Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) reported by fiscal year (FY). The reportable hours vary by airport. |
1,235 | 1,246 | 1,201 | 1,084 | 867 | 878 | 1,323 |
Average Hourly Capacity During Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC)
Number of Operations The average hourly capacity reported during IMC weather conditions (as defined by ASPM). Capacity is defined as the sum of Airport Departure Rate (ADR) and Airport Arrival Rate (AAR). It is calculated based on the reportable hours at the destination airport. The reportable hours vary by airport. |
77 | 75 | 75 | 67 | 54 | 55 | 81 |
As described by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): The global Air Traffic Management (ATM) system should exploit the inherent capacity to meet airspace user demands at peak times and locations while minimizing restrictions on traffic flow. ICAO also notes: The ATM system must be resilient to service disruption and the resulting temporary loss of capacity.