Jack and Doug, Please provide the name of one industry that wants a government agency to control their primary production asset. Further, please explain how a government agency can make a companyâs âday ofâ operation efficient. Letâs face it, the airlineâs fire and forget, wing and a prayer âday ofâ operation, where airlines send Billions of dollars of aircraft out on the wing, and pray that it all works out is no way to run a âday ofâ production process. Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: RWM via Mifnet <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 09:26 To: [email protected]; Doug Church <[email protected]> Cc: Jack Keady <[email protected]>; RWM <[email protected]> Subject: [Mifnet đ° 75654] Re: Continuous descent approaches Jack, A4A was briefed on realtime system optimization of daily flight operations to carrier business rules and objectives in 2008, back when they were still ATA. Their position at the time was 'we as an organization can't recommend solutions, only our member airlines do that.' I guess passing along or recommending 'best practices' were not then organizational objectives. Perhaps not now, either. Just do as FAA proposes? Go along to get along with the regulator? Then too, back in 2013, Aviation Week reported on value of including airline business objectives in what FAA was brewing as Multi-Center TMA and TBFM. http://www.athgrp.com/AvWeekAttilaArticle2013_01_14.pdf Sadly, no one at airlines or A4A appears to think their limited assets and resources, their asset and resource utilization and productivity, their operating margins, the wide variation in their flight by flight operational reliability, service delivery, and customer utility outcomes, and their retained customers and revenue, are either relevant or important to the BNATCS debate, or that an airline-informed BNATCS could play a roll in improving the outcomes for all constituents, not sure which. - Bob On 3/11/2026 11:44 AM, Jack Keady via Mifnet wrote: Where is A4A in all this.i fault the airline group and I also fault the FAA for not doing more to give details and selling this innovation. Keady Sent from the all new AOL app for Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aol.mobile.aolapp> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 7:55, RWM via Mifnet <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: Doug, It is possible that BNATCS could benefit FAA (it will clearly benefit its chosen vendors), but my point is that BNATCS as presently formulated, using the Administrator's own description, leaves most of the operational, efficiency, financial, and reliability benefits to FAA, controllers, airlines and their constituencies unharvested, on the table. That is the shame of the matter. - Bob Mann On 3/11/2026 10:34 AM, Doug Church wrote: Kind of amazing - and disappointing - that only three of us (me, Bob, Michael) are discussing the issue of the proposal of the single most transformational modernization of our National Airspace System in our entire lifetimes. Where are the rest of you, Mifnet? Anyone else want to offer thoughts? There cannot just be three of us talking about this out of a vast audience of Mifnet participants/subscribers? Right? Am I the only one who sees the positives of what BNATCS can do? Am I the only one sick and tired of the unacceptable status quo of crappy outdated equipment, unoptimized airspace, and zero modernization being allowed to continue in this NAS while the rest of the world passes us by and we lose our standing as the gold standard of ATC? As for Bob and Michael: If you're just going to say no to everything, predict failure for any DOT/FAA modernization attempts, and hold out for the airlines to finally do what you're asking them to do - well, OK then. I wish you well. -Doug On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 10:24âŻAM RWM--- via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: That could benefit FAA, but leaves most of the benefits to FAA, controllers, airlines and their constituencies unharvested, on the table. A âmore preciseâ FAA trombone slide of delays is not the best outcome FAA or airlines could achieve, on their own behalf, as well as for their customers, investors, and employees. Other examples of FAA âmore preciseâ include âmetropolitan airspace realignmentâ and RNP procedures that demonstrably add FAA waypoints, flying minutes and fuel burn â the antithesis of what was promoted as âimprovementsâ. Be careful what you ask for, lest you get it. Be careful what you leave on the table, too. - Bob Mann
On Mar 11, 2026, at 10:10, Doug Church via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: ďťż RE: "The fact is that there is no way that FAA can make an airline efficient, let alone a single aircraft. Airlines can, ATC canât." Well, Michael, we may have found something we can agree on in this discussion. But the FAA can make the airspace efficient. BNATCS is about expanding the capacity of the airspace to accommodate increased future traffic demands and new entrants. Bedford wants separation tightened up. He said it himself yesterday: "If we want to create more capacity, reducing separation standards and going to trajectory flying is the only way to do that. We need to go from imprecise to precise.â -Doug On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:45âŻPM [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Doug, The source is me. But also, Bedford said it himself, âWeâll tell you where we want you ⌠and weâll tell you where we want you to be to hit that top of descentâ. These should and must be airline/user decisions. Next, show me in the BNATCS plan how each airline/user inputs their business goals for each individual aircraft or how individual pilots are allowed to manage their arrival time enroute? The fact is that there is no way that FAA can make an airline efficient, let alone a single aircraft. Airlines can, ATC canât. Finally, remember, as Captain Tom Hendricls said (Confessions of an Attila⢠Doubter <https://greenlandings.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Delta-Attila-CheckList-Article-2007-09.pdf> ), âItâs Not About You ⌠Itâs About an Aircraft You Donât See (Or Hear) ... What is transparent to a crew faced with situations like these is the recovery of unused slots in the queue that might be fifteen aircraft ahead of or behind you (and possibly on a different frequency)â. Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: Doug Church <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 17:52 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Mifnet đ° 75637] Re: Continuous descent approaches Re: âBNATCS also continues to leave out the airlines/users and pilots.â Says who? Source? -Doug On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 7:03âŻPM ATHGroup--- via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Doug, Yes, airlines are onboard with BNATCS without thinking through the implications. While BNATCS is great for equipment replacement (which is needed), BNATCS will further institutionalize ATCâs control over the movement of the airlineâs/userâs aircraft, which will haunt the airline/user âday ofâ operation for decades to come. With BNATCS, airlines can forget about any chance of airline âday ofâ Operational Excellence. âAdministrator Bedford comes straight from running an airlineâ is not an attribute, because Bedford is unnecessarily continuing the airlineâs 1980s âATC controls everything and ATC is the only answerâ mentality that costs individual large airlines over $5 Billion annually. We need new thinking. BNATCS also continues to leave out the airlines/users and pilots, which will continue ATCâs unnecessarily high costs across aviation. I recently did a comparison of an Airline Centric Flow Manage versus the ATC Flow Manage (TBFM) that might be of interest ( <https://greenlandings.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Airline-Centric-Flow-Manger-vs.-TBFM-2025-02.pdf> Airline Centric vs. ATC Centric Flow Manager, 2025-02). As I said, airlines/users need to speak up and tell ATC what they want, instead of simply accepting. Finally, there is an FAA validated solution that reduces costs (FAA and airlines), reduces delays, improves runway throughput, etc. The only downside is that this is not what ATC and airlines have done for the last 50 years. Oh wait, there is no downside. Benefits of Systems Thinking <image001.png> Costs of Current Thinking <image002.png> Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: Doug Church via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 14:31 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; Doug Church <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Mifnet đ° 75635] Re: Continuous descent approaches Bob, I am afraid I donât really understand what youâre saying here, nor do I understand why you are dooming BNATCS to failure before it even gets going. The airlines are fully onboard with BNATCS because it will increase reliability and predictability and reduce delays. Administrator Bedford comes straight from running an airline. This plan for airspace optimization and trajectory based ops will address precisely what you and Michael are advocating for. -Doug On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 5:24âŻPM RWM--- via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: ââWeâll tell you where we want you to be in three dimensions ⌠and weâll tell you where we want you to be to hit that top of descent mark to [meet] the constraints of the runway, not the airspace itself,â said Bedford in recent remarks at the Aero Club of Washington.â Doug, These RTAs are continuous system optimization calls (and they are in 4 dimensions, not 3) best made by airlines, using their own real time information, for their own accounts, individually, or shipped to and honest-brokered by FAA in the most complex multi-carrier airspace, enroute and terminal, airborne and surface. FAA does not have, nor does it propose to acquire and use airlinesâ real-time resource information, business objectives and constraints, in order to system optimize and improve airline, customer, employee and investor outcomes. Attempting to resolve the root cause drivers of the need for ATC intervention, infrastructure, and staffing without considering real time airline resource status, business objectives and constraints is among the easily foreseeable reasons why BNATCS will be yet another expensive, late, failure out of the gate, and fail to resolve airline delays. - Bob Mann On Mar 10, 2026, at 16:42, Doug Church via Mifnet <[email protected]> wrote: âWeâll tell you where we want you to be in three dimensions ⌠and weâll tell you where we want you to be to hit that top of descent mark to [meet] the constraints of the runway, not the airspace itself,â said Bedford in recent remarks at the Aero Club of Washington. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: 20250507 You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: https://wardell.us/url/mifbit All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a right. 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author. 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other Mifnet members. * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: https://www.mifnet.com/ * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: https://lists.mifnet.com/ OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=leave * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: [email protected] * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: [email protected] * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list traffic into 1-3 messages daily. See instructions at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=help * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/
