Memphis International Airport (MEM) is the busiest cargo airport in North America — second in the world — with 4,258,531 metric tons of cargo passing through its facilities in 2014. During the same time, operations decreased 6.2 percent to 219,014. MEM is the home of the FedEx Express global SuperHub, which processes a significant portion of the freight carrier's packages.
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 29, 2016.
Optimized Profile Descents (OPD)
What are Optimized Profile Descents?
Conventional arrival procedures — the published routes and instructions that guide aircraft to the runway — are constrained by the availability and proximity of ground-based navigation aids. The advent of more precise Area Navigation (RNAV) technologies based on GPS eliminated this constraint and eased the design of more efficient arrival procedures. Optimized Profile Descents (OPD) are RNAV arrival procedures that aim to reduce step-descents commonly flown in the past. OPD procedures can be used by arrival aircraft to facilitate descent from cruise altitude at or near idle power, minimizing changes in the thrust. This allows aircraft to fly longer at more fuel-efficient cruise altitudes before initiating the descent to their final destination. While step-descents may still be required for safe aircraft merging and sequencing, OPDs can reduce the time aircraft spend in level flight and shift them to higher, more fuel efficient altitudes.
How are OPDs used in Memphis?
Four Area Navigation (RNAV) Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR) were implemented at Memphis International Airport (MEM) on July 26, 2012. Relative to the conventional RNAV STARs, the new arrival procedures named FNCHR, LTOWN, TAMMY, and MASHH improved vertical profiles of arrivals into MEM by facilitating a smoother descent angle during landing, leading to greater flight efficiency through a decrease in distance and time in level-flight.
The implementation of OPDs led to increased use of RNAV STARs at MEM, especially during Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The increase from 21 to 40 percent during IMC occurred after the implementation of OPDs and Wake Recategorization standards on November 1, 2012. The expanded use of the new procedures is expected to lead to greater consistency and predictability in aircraft trajectories, potentially resulting in reduced controller and pilot communications and interactions — leading to greater flight efficiency through a decrease in distance and time. Airlines are also expected to benefit from greater predictability of aircraft trajectories due to reduced variability between projected and actual fuel consumption.
How did it impact operations?
A number of significant benefits were observed at Memphis International Airport (MEM) following the implementation of the Area Navigation (RNAV) Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs). A noticeable benefit of the OPD implementation was the improvement in the vertical efficiency of aircraft. In the first two months after the implementation, distance in level flight decreased by 5.0 nautical miles, while time in level flight was reduced by 0.83 minutes on average. This change marked a 15 and 13 percent decrease, respectively, compared to the pre-implementation period. The implementation of OPDs followed by Wake Recategorization (Wake Recat) at MEM led to further improvements in aircraft performance outcomes — a reduction in distance and time at level flight by 21 and 23 percent, respectively, during Visual Meteorological Conditions, and 26 percent during Instrument Meteorological Conditions.
MEM also experienced a 2.5 percent increase in arrivals without level offs, a 12 percent decrease in the average number of level offs in the first two months after implementation, and a 17 percent decrease in level offs during the 2 months following Wake Recat implementation.
Increased efficiency of arrival flow management also led to a substantial decrease in aircraft holding. MEM observed a decrease of 3 percent in average holding duration before Wake Recat. After implementation, a significant reduction of 55.6 percent in holding events and nearly 10 percent in average holding duration was observed.
Results from a comprehensive FAA assessment of 11 airports where OPD procedures were implemented in FY 2013 showed significant improvements in flight and fuel efficiency resulting from the enhanced arrival procedures. Specifically, the study found:
- Aircraft were 5 percent more likely to perform continuous descents.
- Flights that conducted step-descents did so more efficiently, exhibiting:
- An 8 percent reduction in the average number of level segments. This reflects fewer step-descents, which translates to less fuel and fewer communication exchanges between pilots and controllers to safely manage arrival flows.
- A 6 percent reduction in the average time and distance in level flight. This reflects more time in continuous descent, which is more fuel efficient than level flight.
- A 5 percent increase in the average altitude in level flight. Aircraft are generally more fuel efficient at higher altitudes.
The above improvements tended to be greater at airports where the new OPDs could be used by a higher proportion of arrivals.
Click here for a full description of the NextGen Operational Performance Assessment.
What is the value of this improvement?
While the FAA did not monetize the specific impacts of Optimized Profile Descents (OPD) at Memphis International Airport, it estimates the observed efficiency gains from the 41 OPDs at 11 airports implemented in Fiscal Year 2013 translated into $4 million in fuel cost savings to aircraft operators between 2013 and 2014. These savings, expressed in 2015 dollars, apply only to the share of flights at each of the airports that were in a position to use the newly implemented OPD procedures. FAA monetized the observed reductions in level flight time using fleet-specific cost factors that reflect the lower fuel burn associated with idle descent.
Where else is it implemented?
As of September 15, 2016, there are a total of 240 active Optimized Profile Descent procedures at 114 airports in the National Airspace System.
Additional information available on the NextGen Portfolio pages.
Wake Re-Categorization Phase 1 — Aircraft Re-Categorization
What is Wake Recat?
Air traffic controllers in the United States currently use two classifications and sets of separation standards to avoid wake turbulence from nearby aircraft during approach and takeoff: traditional and recategorized wake classes. Following over a decade of research in collaboration with various groups, the FAA developed new aircraft classes and spacing criteria based on aircraft wingspan, weight, approach speed, and lateral control characteristics. Compared to the traditional categorization which is based on maximum takeoff weight, the wake recategorization (Wake Recat) results in less variation of weight, speed, and wake characteristics among aircraft in the same category. With Wake Recat there are six aircraft separation categories — labeled A through F — opposed to the traditional four or five categories. As a result, separations for more combinations of aircraft categories can be safely reduced, especially for those flying behind the traditional Heavy class and Boeing 757 aircraft.
To learn more about the six categories, read FAA Order JO 7110.659A Wake Turbulence Recategorization.
How is Wake Recat used at Memphis?
Since November 1, 2012, controllers at Memphis Tower have been using wake recategorization (Wake Recat) spacing criteria to manage separations between aircraft on final approach to and departing from Memphis International Airport (MEM).
Together with the Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) with Optimized Profile Descents (OPD) implemented in July 2012, Wake Recat has contributed to improving the efficiency of arrivals in the Memphis terminal airspace. Controllers use vectoring less frequently to manage arrival flows and carefully space aircraft on their final approach resulting in less distance and time in the air.
How did it impact operations?
Over the last few years, the FAA has conducted several operational assessments of wake recategorization (Wake Recat). The latest assessment, published in September 2015, compared implementations and impacts across locations at which Wake Recat use was authorized by the end of Fiscal Year 2014. The analysis looked at four airports: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG), Memphis International Airport (MEM), and Louisville International-Standiford Field Airport (SDF), and reported the following trends:
- Inter-arrival and inter-departure spacing decreased at all four airports.
- On average, peak quarter-hour throughput increased by at least one departure and up to one arrival per runway at CVG, MEM, and SDF, the three airports with a high proportion of Category C and Boeing 757 aircraft.
- For nearly all arrival-fix runway pairs, average time in terminal airspace decreased. Varying by airport, the decrease was between 1.7 and 4.4 percent.
- After Wake Recat implementation, higher airport departure rates (ADR) and airport arrival rates (AAR) were used.
The analysis found the following for MEM specifically:
- The use of AAR at or above 90 arrivals-per-hour became more consistent about three months after implementation. Also, the combined AAR and ADR of at least 170 operations-per-hour was used consistently, which was rarely observed before Wake Recat.
- The number of operations handled per hour increased by 13.
- Departure queue delays decreased by around three minutes.
- Since deployment through the end of FY 2014, taxi-out times savings during peak periods accumulated to about 148,000 minutes.
Click here for a full description of the NextGen Operational Performance Assessment.
What is the value of this improvement?
In general, reduced separation between runway operations has the direct effect of increasing an airport's arrival and departure capacities. During periods of high demand, this can reduce the time that aircraft spend taxiing to and from gates and initially translate to smaller arrival delays against flight schedules, though these outcomes are also affected by a host of other factors. These benefits result in reduced operating costs for aircraft operators and less travel time for passengers. Over time, airlines may capitalize on the additional capacity by scheduling more flights, particularly during peak periods, which can increase the number of connections available to passengers.
Where else is it implemented?
As of the end of August 2016, wake recategorization (Wake Recat) has been implemented at 22 Airports:
- Core Airports: ATL, CLT, DEN, EWR, IAH, JFK, LGA, MDW, MEM, ORD and SFO
- Non-Core Airports: ANC, CVG, HOU, HPN, IND, ISP, OAK, SDF, SJC, SMF and TEB
The next step in Wake Recat is to start implementing pair-wise aircraft separations that uniquely address the needs of a specific airport based on the local fleet mix.
Read how Wake Recat is used at other locations in the National Airspace System.
Additional information available on the NextGen Portfolio pages.
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. |
1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | -4.0 | -2.2 | -11.8 | -17.9 |
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 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
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 | 30.7 | 28.1 | 23.2 | 22.6 | 23.3 |
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). |
107.8 | 109.0 | 110.3 | 108.3 | 114.6 | 121.8 | 113.7 |
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. |
7.4 | 7.6 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 6.1 |
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. |
17.3 | 17.9 | 16.9 | 15.7 | 16.1 | 14.9 | 14.8 |
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. |
3,182 | 3,446 | 3,558 | 3,690 | 3,706 | 3,745 | 3,626 |
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. |
128 | 134 | 136 | 144 | 142 | 144 | 139 |
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.
![Charting Information2](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20161101090108im_/http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/assets/img/Title-Slide-for-Charting_NEW.png)