b'MSP Revenue Passengers Airfield Capacity In late 2018 and early 2019, the MAC began the data collection Airfield capacity is typically described in terms of hourly capacityprocess for the MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport 2040 and annual capacity under good and poor weather conditions.LongTerm Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is a forward-looking Table A-1 below reflects the hourly capacity for MSP in optimum,planning tool that studies facility and infrastructure needs 40 marginal and poor weather conditions. based on projected 20-year passenger demand and aircraft 36,773,867 operations. The most recently adopted long-term plan for MSP MSP Airfield Capacity Table A-1 was completed in 2010, forecasting needs and presenting plans 35 Weather ConditionsOperations per hour for addressing them through 2030. In 2015, the MAC undertook the process of updating that plan with an eye toward addressing Optimal Rate (1) . 158 forecasted needs through 2035. However, community concerns 30 Marginal Rate (2) 146 about CRO and how the FAA intended to address them paused IFR Rate (3) 114 the 2035 planning process. The delay was needed to better 25 Notes:understand and incorporate changes to ground and air operations (1) Ceiling and visibility above minima for visual approaches. due to CRO into the MACs long-term planning efforts.Millions(2) Below visual approach minima but better than instrument conditions. (3) Instrument Flight Rules (cloud ceiling less than 1,000 feet or20visibility less than 3 miles). Source: Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Control Tower Analysis15 MSPs current airfield capacity is about 158 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) in optimum conditions and 114 operations in poor weather, when instrument flight rules are being used due 10 to low-level, heavy cloud cover and/or low visibility. Since 2015, when new Converging Runway Operations (CRO) measures were 5 put in place, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has worked to refine the procedures at MSP to regain capacity and reduce environmental impacts. 0 During 2018, the FAA continued the implementation of tools and 20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 agreements designed to standardize operating expectations within its air traffic control system. The three local FAA facilities Source: MAC Monthly Statistics. Note, this graph reflects numbers of paying passengers only. Each years totals are greater if you also count non-revenue passengers such as airlinehave similar interests in controlling air traffic but different employees with flight benefits. constraints on their activity. To standardize the agreements regarding use of CRO, the facilities began to develop rules between the local facilities that identify the variables necessary to commence CRO measures. The agreements between the facilities are expected to be finalized in 2019.v vi'