Operational Use of Flight Path Management System. Final Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Operational Use of Flight Path Management System. Final Report September 8, 2013 Ms. Margaret Gilligan Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Dear Peggy, On behalf of the PARC, I am pleased to provide the recommendations of the Flight Deck Automation Working Group. The PARC Steering Group and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) established this joint working group to address, for current and projected operational use, the safety and efficiency of modern flight deck systems for flight path management (including energy-state management). The Working Group analyzed safety and operational data to fulfill its tasking. It generated 29 findings and 18 recommendations that are documented in the final report in the attachment. The findings address: Many of the sources of safety and operational risk mitigation in the current aviation system; Equipment design, pilot training and qualification, and airspace operations; and Lessons learned from the analyses of different sources of safety and operational data. The report provides recommendations to address the findings in each of these areas. The findings and recommendations are summarized in the Executive Summary of the attached report. This material represents years of effort by the working group and is a significant body of work that should be invaluable to the FAA moving forward. The PARC expects this to have a positive effect on the aviation community through improved guidance material and policy for aircraft systems, training and flight operations. The PARC is thankful for the effective leadership provided by Kathy Abbott, Dave McKenney, and Paul Railsback in their efforts leading the Flight Deck Automation Working Group through the extensive coordination efforts with CAST in finalizing the report and recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dave Nakamura Chairman Performance-based operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee Cc: PARC members David McKenney Paul Railsback This page intentionally left blank Report of the PARC/CAST Flight Deck Automation WG This page intentionally left blank Page ii Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................1 2 Introduction................................................................................................................11 2.1 Background........................................................................................................11 2.2 Tasking of This Working Group ........................................................................13 2.3 Methods, Processes and Sources of Data...........................................................14 3 Findings and Observations.........................................................................................21 3.1 Technical and Operational Environment – Changes .........................................21 3.2 Operational Experience: Results from the Front Line .......................................29 3.2.1 Pilots Mitigate Risk..................................................................................... 29 3.2.2 Manual Flight Operations ........................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Managing Malfunctions.............................................................................. 34 3.2.4 Pilot Use of, and Interaction with, Automated Systems ............................. 36 3.2.5 Communication between Pilots in a Flightcrew ......................................... 44 3.2.6 Communication between Flightcrews and Air Traffic Services ................. 48 3.3 Flight Operational Philosophies, Procedures and Policies ................................53 3.3.1 Flightcrew Procedures – Standard Operating Procedures .......................... 53 3.3.2 Policies for use of Flight Path Management Systems ................................. 55 3.4 Task/Workload Management .............................................................................57 3.4.1 Prioritization of Tasks................................................................................. 58 3.4.2 Workload Management ............................................................................... 59 3.4.3 Information Management ............................................................................ 60 3.4.4 Time Management ...................................................................................... 60 3.4.5 Allocation of Tasks between Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring ................ 61 3.4.6 Future Considerations ................................................................................. 62 3.5 Pilot Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................63 3.5.1 Vulnerabilities in Pilot Knowledge and Skills ............................................ 63 3.5.2 Pilot Training and Qualification ................................................................. 68 3.5.3 Instructor Training and Qualification ......................................................... 75 3.5.4 Other Factors and Future Considerations ................................................... 76 3.6 Flight Deck Equipment Design ..........................................................................77 3.6.1 Equipment Design Complexity and Integration ......................................... 77 3.6.2 Equipment Design Standardization............................................................. 79 3.6.3 Flight Deck System Design Processes ........................................................ 81 3.7 Air Traffic and Airspace Considerations ...........................................................86 3.7.1 Airspace/Air Traffic Procedures ................................................................. 86 3.7.2 Air Traffic Personnel .................................................................................. 90 3.8 Regulators’ Knowledge, Skills and Processes ...................................................91 3.9 Data Collection and Analysis.............................................................................95 3.9.1 Data Availability......................................................................................... 95 3.9.2 Data Sources ............................................................................................... 97 3.9.3 Data Organization, Analysis, and Use ........................................................ 99 4 Recommendations....................................................................................................107 Page iii Report of the PARC/CAST Flight Deck Automation WG 5 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................129 Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................131 Appendix A Terms of Reference .....................................................................................133 Appendix B Topics for Discussion with Manufacturers and Operators ..........................135 Appendix C Keywords used for ASRS Event Retrieval..................................................141 Appendix D Accident and Major Incident Reports Used in Flight Deck Automation Working Group Analyses................................................................................................................143 Appendix E Bibliography ................................................................................................171 Appendix F Categorization Scheme for Reviewing Accident and Incident Data ...........179 Appendix G Results of Analyses .....................................................................................191 Working Group Process...............................................................................................191 Accidents, Major Incidents, ASRS Incidents, and LOSA Data ...................................195 ASRS Incident Factor Analyses...................................................................................228 Accident/Major Incident Factor Analysis ....................................................................230 Co-Occurrence Analyses .............................................................................................231 LOSA Analysis ............................................................................................................233 Appendix H Status of Recommendations in 1996 FAA report on the Interfaces between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems ................................................................243 Page iv List of Figures Figure 1. Overall Tasking of the Flight Deck Automation Working Group. ............................... 15 Figure 2. US Aircraft Fleet Growth. ............................................................................................. 23 Figure 3. Growth in US TRACON Operations............................................................................. 23 Figure 4. Growth in US Air Carriers International Available Seat Miles (ASM) by Region....... 24 Figure 5. NextGen Summary. ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6. Evolving Pilot Knowledge and Skills............................................................................ 27 Figure 7. Manual Handling/Flight Control Errors. ....................................................................... 32 Figure 8. Aircraft Malfunctions.
Recommended publications
  • IATA Safety Report 2013
    Transforming the way the world moves. For 80 years, Jeppesen has made travel safer and more efficient through the power of intelligent information. Along the way, we’ve transformed lives as well as the way the world does business. Jeppesen is proud that IATA and its members are trusted partners in the aviation industry. jeppesen.com SAFETY REPORT 2013 Issued April 2014 International Air Transport Association Montreal—Geneva 50th Edition NOTICE DISCLAIMER. The information contained in this publication is subject to constant review in the light of changing government requirements and regula- tions. No subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of any such information without referring to applicable laws and regulations and/or without seeking appropriate professional advice. Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the International Air Transport Association shall not be held responsible for any loss or damage caused by errors, omissions, misprints or misinterpretation of the contents hereof. Furthermore, the Interna- tional Air Transport Association expressly disclaims any and all liability to any person or entity, whether a purchaser of this publication or not, in respect of anything done or omitted, and the consequences of anything done or omitted, by any such person or entity in reliance on the contents of this publication. Opinions expressed in advertisements appearing in this publication are the advertiser’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of IATA. The mention of specific companies or products in advertisement does not imply that they are endorsed or recom- mended by IATA in preference to others of a simi- lar nature which are not mentioned or advertised.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Aviation Report
    Quarterly Aviation Report DUTCH SAFETY BOARD page 14 Investigations Within the Aviation sector, the Dutch Safety Board is required by law to investigate occurrences involving aircraft on or above Dutch territory. In addition, the Board has a statutory duty to investigate occurrences involving Dutch aircraft over open sea. Its October - December 2020 investigations are conducted in accordance with the Safety Board Kingdom Act and Regulation (EU) In this quarterly report, the Dutch Safety Board gives a brief review of the no. 996/2010 of the European past year. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of commercial Parliament and of the Council of flights in the Netherlands was 52% lower than in 2019. The Dutch Safety 20 October 2010 on the Board therefore received fewer reports. In 2020, 27 investigations were investigation and prevention of started into serious incidents and accidents in the Netherlands. In addition, accidents and incidents in civil the Dutch Safety Board opened an investigation into a serious incident aviation. If a description of the involving a Boeing 747 in Zimbabwe in 2019. The Civil Aviation Authority page 7 events is sufficient to learn of Zimbabwe has delegated the entire conduct of the investigation to the lessons, the Board does not Netherlands, where the aircraft is registered and the airline is located. In the conduct any further investigation. past year, the Dutch Safety Board has offered and/or provided assistance to foreign investigative bodies thirteen times in investigations involving Dutch The Board’s activities are mainly involvement. aimed at preventing occurrences in the future or limiting their In this quarterly report you can read, among other things, about an consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • My Personal Callsign List This List Was Not Designed for Publication However Due to Several Requests I Have Decided to Make It Downloadable
    - www.egxwinfogroup.co.uk - The EGXWinfo Group of Twitter Accounts - @EGXWinfoGroup on Twitter - My Personal Callsign List This list was not designed for publication however due to several requests I have decided to make it downloadable. It is a mixture of listed callsigns and logged callsigns so some have numbers after the callsign as they were heard. Use CTL+F in Adobe Reader to search for your callsign Callsign ICAO/PRI IATA Unit Type Based Country Type ABG AAB W9 Abelag Aviation Belgium Civil ARMYAIR AAC Army Air Corps United Kingdom Civil AgustaWestland Lynx AH.9A/AW159 Wildcat ARMYAIR 200# AAC 2Regt | AAC AH.1 AAC Middle Wallop United Kingdom Military ARMYAIR 300# AAC 3Regt | AAC AgustaWestland AH-64 Apache AH.1 RAF Wattisham United Kingdom Military ARMYAIR 400# AAC 4Regt | AAC AgustaWestland AH-64 Apache AH.1 RAF Wattisham United Kingdom Military ARMYAIR 500# AAC 5Regt AAC/RAF Britten-Norman Islander/Defender JHCFS Aldergrove United Kingdom Military ARMYAIR 600# AAC 657Sqn | JSFAW | AAC Various RAF Odiham United Kingdom Military Ambassador AAD Mann Air Ltd United Kingdom Civil AIGLE AZUR AAF ZI Aigle Azur France Civil ATLANTIC AAG KI Air Atlantique United Kingdom Civil ATLANTIC AAG Atlantic Flight Training United Kingdom Civil ALOHA AAH KH Aloha Air Cargo United States Civil BOREALIS AAI Air Aurora United States Civil ALFA SUDAN AAJ Alfa Airlines Sudan Civil ALASKA ISLAND AAK Alaska Island Air United States Civil AMERICAN AAL AA American Airlines United States Civil AM CORP AAM Aviation Management Corporation United States Civil
    [Show full text]
  • 327 - 39 NMB No
    NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WASHINGTON, DC 20572 (202) 692-5000 In the Matter of the Application of the 39 NMB No. 35 ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT CASE NO. R-7324 ATTENDANTS - CWA (File No. CR- 7017) alleging a representation dispute FINDINGS UPON pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of INVESTIGATION the Railway Labor Act, as amended April 18, 2012 involving employees of PINNACLE AIRLINES, INC. / THE FORMER MESABA AVIATION, INC. / COLGAN AIR This determination addresses the application filed pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA)1 by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA). AFA- CWA filed an application requesting the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate a representation dispute involving the Flight Attendants of Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. (Pinnacle), Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (Mesaba) and Colgan Air, Inc. (Colgan) (“the Carriers” collectively)2. AFA-CWA currently represents the craft or class of Flight Attendants at Mesaba. The United Steelworkers (USW) represents the Flight Attendants at both Pinnacle (pursuant to a Board certification) and Colgan (pursuant to voluntary recognition). AFA-CWA requests the NMB to investigate whether Pinnacle, Mesaba and Colgan are operating as a single transportation system. 1 45 U.S.C. §151, et. seq. 2 The Carriers are subsidiaries of Pinnacle Airlines Corp. (Pinnacle Corp.). - 327 - 39 NMB No. 35 The Board’s investigation establishes that Pinnacle, Mesaba and Colgan are operating as a single transportation system for the craft or class of Flight Attendants. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 9, 2011, AFA-CWA filed an application alleging a representation dispute involving the craft or class of Flight Attendants. AFA-CWA represents the Flight Attendants at Mesaba.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Review on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
    International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume- 5, Issue-6, Jun.-2017 http://iraj.in A BRIEF REVIEW ON ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM 1AZEEM SINGH KAHLON, 2TAAVISHE GUPTA, 3POOJA DAHIYA, 4SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract - This paper describes the basic design, advantages and disadvantages of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for aircraft carriers of the future along with a brief comparison with traditional launch mechanisms. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the feasibility of EMALS for the next generation indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vishal. I. INTRODUCTION maneuvering. Depending on the thrust produced by the engines and weight of aircraft the length of the India has a central and strategic location in the Indian runway varies widely for different aircraft. Normal Ocean. It shares the longest coastline of 7500 runways are designed so as to accommodate the kilometers amongst other nations sharing the Indian launch for such deviation in takeoff lengths, but the Ocean. India's 80% trade is via sea routes passing scenario is different when it comes to aircraft carriers. through the Indian Ocean and 85% of its oil and gas Launch of an aircraft from a mobile platform always are imported through sea routes. Indian Ocean also requires additional systems and methods to assist the serves as the locus of important international Sea launch because the runway has to be scaled down, Lines Of Communication (SLOCs) . Development of which is only about 300 feet as compared to 5,000- India’s political structure, industrial and commercial 6,000 feet required for normal aircraft to takeoff from growth has no meaning until its shores are protected.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-007 State File No: IRL00913099 Report Format: Synoptic Report Published: 10 May 2016
    Air Accident Investigation Unit Ireland SYNOPTIC REPORT SERIOUS INCIDENT Boeing 757-224, N41140 80 NM Southwest of Dublin, Ireland 20 October 2013 Boeing 757-224, N41140 80 NM southwest of Dublin 20 October 2013 FINAL REPORT Foreword This safety investigation is exclusively of a technical nature and the Final Report reflects the determination of the AAIU regarding the circumstances of this occurrence and its probable causes. In accordance with the provisions of Annex 131 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Regulation (EU) No 996/20102 and Statutory Instrument No. 460 of 20093, safety investigations are in no case concerned with apportioning blame or liability. They are independent of, separate from and without prejudice to any judicial or administrative proceedings to apportion blame or liability. The sole objective of this safety investigation and Final Report is the prevention of accidents and incidents. Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIU Reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the safety investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose. Extracts from this Report may be published providing that the source is acknowledged, the material is accurately reproduced and that it is not used in a derogatory or misleading context. 1 1 Annex 13: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. 2 Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. 3 Statutory Instrument (SI) No. 460 of 2009: Air Navigation (Notification and Investigation of Accidents, Serious Incidents and Incidents) Regulations 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Using an Autothrottle to Compare Techniques for Saving Fuel on A
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2010 Using an autothrottle ot compare techniques for saving fuel on a regional jet aircraft Rebecca Marie Johnson Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Rebecca Marie, "Using an autothrottle ot compare techniques for saving fuel on a regional jet aircraft" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11358. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11358 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Using an autothrottle to compare techniques for saving fuel on A regional jet aircraft by Rebecca Marie Johnson A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Electrical Engineering Program of Study Committee: Umesh Vaidya, Major Professor Qingze Zou Baskar Ganapathayasubramanian Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2010 Copyright c Rebecca Marie Johnson, 2010. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION I gratefully acknowledge everyone who contributed to the successful completion of this research. Bill Piche, my supervisor at Rockwell Collins, was supportive from day one, as were many of my colleagues. I also appreciate the efforts of my thesis committee, Drs. Umesh Vaidya, Qingze Zou, and Baskar Ganapathayasubramanian. I would also like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Serving the Northern Netherlands Groningen Airport Eelde the Northern Netherlands: Groningen, Drenthe, Friesland
    Serving the Northern Netherlands Groningen Airport Eelde The Northern Netherlands: Groningen, Drenthe, Friesland 10% of Dutch population The Guardian: Groningen happiest city of Europe From Cow to Google Groningen Airport Eelde (GRQ) is the only airport in the densely- populated Benelux/ Northwest Germany region that does not overlap catchment areas with other airports. GRQ is not slot-constrained and has capacity for growth. Copenhagen 2019 2014 London Best in class in Diary; Milk reservoir of Europe Worldclass Research Institutes; Agribusiness Van Hall Larenstein and University of Groningen International trade Nobel prize winning research (nanotech) Life Science, Modern and innovative business cluster Health & Medical Largest University Hospital in the Netherlands (12,141 employees) Organ Transplantation Hotspot Technology Abundance of feedstock Large scale green energy Energy Transition development Power to gas (Hydrogen) and Biobased Green dataport Eemshaven (data center development) Chemicals Green energy supply; 600 MW Gemini Wind International fiber connections Home to the smartest production facilities in the world World class materials research (Zernike Institute) High tech industry Big data Fleet management & Crewing Maritime sector Specialty ship building Tourism Culture Sports Within 30 minutes – 575,000 inhabitants Within 45 minutes – 1,279,000 inhabitants Within 60 minutes – 2,079,000 inhabitants Major leakage effect Minor leakage effect Route potential from GRQ Leakage analysis results Currently Destination Name Upper range
    [Show full text]
  • Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. CRJ200 124 CRJ900 16
    Forward-Looking Statement The use of words, such as “may”, “might”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “intends”, “future”, “potential” or “continue”, the negative of these terms and other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and projections about future events. Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause our actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results, level of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In this regard, you should specifically consider the numerous risks outlined in our registration statement in the section entitled, “Risk Factors.” 1 Phil Trenary President and CEO 2 About Pinnacle Airlines Corp. Holding company with two operating subsidiaries: Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. and Colgan Air, Inc. Regional Airline Partnerships with Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways Over 5,000 Employees Current fleet of 138 CRJ200 and 2 CRJ900 next generation regional jets, 42 Saab 340B and 7 Beech 1900D turboprop aircraft 14 additional CRJ900s on order for delivery by February 2009 15 Q-400 next generation turboprops on order. Deliveries start in December 2007, completed by June 30, 2008. 3 Guiding Principles – Pinnacle Airlines Never Compromise Safety Respect for All Pinnacle People We recognize safety as our highest We recognize the value of all People. priority in all aspects of the Airline. We will train our People in the areas of diversity and leadership, giving them the Commitment to Communications tools necessary to ensure relationships We will communicate timely and effectively any are based on the principle of mutual respect.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Factors of Flight-Deck Checklists: the Normal Checklist
    NASA Contractor Report 177549 Human Factors of Flight-Deck Checklists: The Normal Checklist Asaf Degani San Jose State University Foundation San Jose, CA Earl L. Wiener University of Miami Coral Gables, FL Prepared for Ames Research Center CONTRACT NCC2-377 May 1990 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 2 1.1. The Normal Checklist .................................................... 2 1.2. Objectives ...................................................................... 5 1.3. Methods ......................................................................... 5 2. THE NATURE OF CHECKLISTS............................................... 7 2.1. What is a Checklist?....................................................... 7 2.2. Checklist Devices .......................................................... 8 3. CHECKLIST CONCEPTS ......................................................... 18 3.1. “Philosophy of Use” .................................................... 18 3.2. Certification of Checklists ........................................... 22 3.3. Standardization of Checklists ...................................... 24 3.4. Two/three Pilot Cockpit ............................................... 25 4. AIRLINE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS .......................... 27 5. LINE OBSERVATIONS OF CHECKLIST PERFORMANCE.. 29 5.1. Initiation ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ac 120-67 3/18/97
    Advisory u.s. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Circular Ad.nnlstratlon Subject: CRITERIA FOR OPERATIONAL Date: 3/18/97 AC No: 120-67 APPROVAL OF AUTO FLIGHT Initiated By: AFS-400 Change: GUIDANCE SYSTEMS 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) states an acceptable means, but not the only means, for obtaining operational approval of the initial engagement or use of an Auto Flight Guidance System (AFGS) under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, section 121.579(d); part 125, section 125.329(e); and part 135, section 135.93(e) for the takeoff and initial climb phase of flight. 2. APPLICABILITY. The criteria contained in this AC are applicable to operators using commercial turbojet and turboprop aircraft holding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operating authority issued under SPAR 38-2 and 14 CFR parts 119, 121, 125, and 135. The FAA may approve the AFGS operation for the operators under these parts, where necessary, by amending the applicant's operations specifications (OPSPECS). 3. BACKGROUND. The purpose of this AC is to take advantage of technological improvements in the operational capabilities of autopilot systems, particularly at lower altitudes. This AC complements a rule change that would allow the use of an autopilot, certificated and operationally approved by the FAA, at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level in the vertical plane and in accordance with sections 121.189 and 135.367, in the lateral plane. 4. DEFINITIONS. a. Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). A document (under 14 CFR part 25, section 25.1581) which is used to obtain an FAA type certificate.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2011 to April 2012
    Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Washington Dulles International Airport Periodic Summary Report Total Passengers by Airline May 2011 - April 2012 Airline May - 11 Jun - 11 Jul - 11 Aug - 11 Sep - 11 Oct - 11 Nov - 11 Dec - 11 Jan - 12 Feb - 12 Mar - 12 Apr - 12 Total Air Carrier - Scheduled Aer Lingus 12,623 13,751 14,640 13,186 11,698 10,210 4,856 7,179 4,547 2,858 8,513 8,600 112,661 AeroSur 408 2,080 1,846 973 509 582 1,890 2,110 1,523 1,331 13,252 Aeroflot 1,417 1,904 1,628 1,610 1,761 1,238 1,089 1,683 1,421 986 1,667 1,315 17,719 Air France 27,793 36,649 41,790 40,354 33,502 32,417 25,303 27,774 22,764 13,445 24,577 27,332 353,700 AirTran 20,789 18,703 20,034 20,515 15,353 16,692 15,361 12,571 10,681 9,547 10,698 14,528 185,472 All Nippon 11,354 12,363 13,009 12,691 10,943 12,170 11,085 11,906 12,257 9,625 12,643 11,534 141,580 American 74,384 77,450 80,041 78,689 66,938 71,256 69,263 65,220 61,106 56,849 74,369 71,901 847,466 Austrian 11,662 11,848 12,089 11,135 12,345 11,443 8,990 9,675 7,652 7,169 10,907 11,914 126,829 Avianca 4,088 4,540 4,954 4,820 3,711 3,620 3,647 5,543 5,601 4,534 5,944 6,020 57,022 British Airways 37,374 37,522 38,244 37,826 35,128 34,813 29,423 31,867 28,467 19,917 32,881 37,066 400,528 COPA 7,026 6,340 6,904 6,093 5,224 5,131 6,165 6,946 6,972 5,865 6,926 6,133 75,725 Cayman 512 423 518 896 459 2,808 Continental 17,527 24,688 19,117 23,336 27,182 33,415 29,279 27,787 21,398 22,415 42,489 86,064 374,697 Delta 66,469 63,197 66,710 65,269 51,356 59,250 51,226 37,422 41,610 40,342 47,887 53,036
    [Show full text]