Response to MWAA’s October 23^rd “Fly Quiet” Document

​

DCA CWG Fly Quiet Subcommittee

January 22, 2026

​

1

A Difference of Perspectives?

MWAA

1. Quotes Jason Schwartz (PDX) who describes the Authority as doing a “great job encapsulating a huge effort”**
2. Highlights positive CWG outcomes**
3. Spends $500k/year** hosting the CWG and is not willing to spend more
4. Describes the Annual Noise Report as containing “extensive information and data”**
5. Gives the impression that the Authority believes that there is little value to an airline focused FQ program because there is no potential opportunity for future noise mitigation at DCA

** Source: Oct. 23, 2025 meeting summary

Community Working Group

1. Wonders what Jason’s quote has to do with a FQ program
2. Appreciates MWAA endorsement of CWG recommendations to the FAA, but notes that positive outcomes are a result of local government investment in an outside airspace consultant
3. Wonders what the $500k includes, and notes 2025 budgeted revenue of $322.5M for DCA of which $86.9M was budgeted to be credited back to the airlines in 2026; $100k/year for an outside FQ consultant is 0.1% of this “excess revenue.” (2026 Budget not yet posted)
4. Acknowledges that the Annual Noise Report is informative, but notes that the report does not provide granular data and analysis on air carrier performance
5. Believes that data and analysis from a contractor-supported FQ program will lead to constructive “win-win” opportunities (more on possible win-win scenarios on slide 11)

2

Comparison of proposed CWG FQ Program with MWAA FQ Document

• As a starting point, requested analysis of:
• total ops. by airline
• nighttime flights by airline
• fleet mix by airline
• bunching flights at the top of the hour within the framework of 1 hr. slot rules
• go arounds
• effect of slot rules on go arounds

. . . which may inform other consultant-identified data/analysis which, in their opinion, may lead to actionable recommendations to air carriers

​

​

• Provides a historical overview of aircraft noise issues at DCA
• Highlights past CWG accomplishments
• Republishes data from the 2024 Annual Noise Report
• Describes what MWAA currently does, including efforts to keep DCA at capacity while promoting growth at IAD
• Provides 18 charts some of which are responsive to CWG data requests
• Provides no actionable analysis

​

CWG FQ Program Request

Focuses on the Future

MWAA FQ Document Response

Focuses on the Past

3

FQ programs at other airports

• Tend to be located at airports located in the middle of dense urban/suburban areas (like DCA) such as:

LAX ORD JFK SEA EWR

SFO BOS FLL LGA PHL

SAN

• Usually associated with airports that have noise roundtables, which is an indication of significant community noise concerns
• If implemented collaboratively, can be a win-win-win
• Airlines and Airport Authorities receive public acknowledgment
• Communities appreciate engagement and noise mitigation

​

4

5

Expectations of FQ Program - 1

Example

6

Expectations of FQ Program - 2

Example

7

Expectations of FQ Program - 3

Example

8

Expectations of FQ Program - 4

Example

9

Expectations of FQ Program - 5

Example

10

Expectations of FQ Program - 6

Example

What kind of Win-Win-Win Scenarios �does the CWG Envision?

• Data/Analysis could lead to operational changes which decrease the number of go arounds
• Less noise for overflown communities
• Reduces FAA controller workload
• Reduces track miles and improves on-time arrivals for airlines
• Data/Analysis could lead to a change from 1 hr. to 30-minute slot rules
• More opportunities for community noise mitigation
• TAA NoA
• OPD SoA
• Reduces FAA controller workload
• Reduces ramp congestion for a more efficient airline ground operation
• Data/Analysis could lead to airlines flying their quietest aircraft and/or flying aircraft with quieter engines at night. Example: Cathay Pacific using Pratt Whitney engines at SFO
• Lower noise for overflown communities

11

What’s in it for MWAA?� . . . Improved Trust & Goodwill

• JD Power survey of over 30,000 passengers between July 2024 and July 2025 concluded that out of 27 large airports, DCA ranked 20th out of 27 overall.
• The survey measured passengers’ experience across seven core dimensions by order of importance:
• ease of travel through airport
• level of trust with airport
• terminal facilities
• airport staff
• departure experience
• food, beverage and retail
• arrival experience
• According to data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 27.5% of flights arriving at DCA experienced delays during the JD Power survey period. Fewer go arounds and less ramp congestion would improve on-time arrivals and customer satisfaction.
• Which large airport ranked #1? John Wayne Airport which is understood to have the strongest and most community friendly noise abatement efforts in the nation. This is not a coincidence.

12

What the CWG asked for versus What we got

The Ask

• Total runway operations
• by time of day
• by airline
• Number of nighttime operations
• by airline
• by aircraft type
• Average peak noise readings (median Lmax)
• by aircraft type
• by hour

MWAA “FQ” Document

​

✅

✅

✅

✅

X

X

​

13

What the CWG asked for versus What we got

The Ask

• Fleet Mix
• Overall
• By airline
• By noise level (Lmax) based on ANOMS data
• Slot Rules
• Arriving flights by 15 min. increments
• Departing flights by 15 min. increments
• Go Arounds
• Number by day, week, month, year
• Is there a correlation with the bunching of flights during certain segments of an hour due to the 1 hr. slot rules?

MWAA “FQ” Document

​

✅

✅

X

✅

✅

X

X

​

14

What the CWG asked for versus What we got

The Ask

• Quarterly reports
• Collaborate with American Airlines – Ask what data would be most useful and actionable for them
• Outside Contractor Support
• Ability to identify additional useful data/analysis
• Budget for a FQ Program

​

MWAA “FQ” Document

X

X

​

X

X

X

15

Let’s take a look inside the report . . .

16

MWAA’s document is not a Fly Quiet program as commonly understood. Fly Quiet programs rate carrier performance

17

Thank you!

18

Pg. 3

(and repeated

on pgs. 4, 5, 8)

This is what a true FQ program will help us do!

19

More accurate: “At Community Working Group request, the north flow west-bound departure procedure . . .” (otherwise, it reads like MWAA initiated the change)

Page 8

20

Page 9

The CWG needs an SME

to analyze flight and noise

data

The CWG needs more granular

analysis of airport and airline data including go-arounds

Pg. 11

Please modify to: “fly over portions of the

Potomac River” as the 2015 RNP-AR flew

over 5 miles of MoCo communities

between FERGI and DARIC

More accurate: new DARIC waypoint

location which was moved over more noise compatible land.

More accurate: this Virginia overland path was replaced by a flight path that begins over portions of Montgomery County and then flies over the Potomac River

DARIC is misspelled here, below, and on pgs. 16 and 19

More accurate: The RV19 procedure was

modified in 2015 to begin at a relocated

FERGI waypoint over Montgomery County. South of Glen Echo, MD, the modified procedure avoided overflying communities by following the river

??? Is MWAA describing the RNP-AR here ???

Please use correct River Visual 19 chart on page 15 (FAA published erroneous chart and later corrected it)

22

Pg. 15

23

Pg. 25

The definition of “restrict” is to “limit the size, amount, or range of something; to put a limit on it”.

​

More accurate to write “deters” noisier aircraft…

24

Pages 27 and pg. 36

Useful!

25

Pg. 28

As WG members have stated previously, we

need an SME to analyze noise data, not

complaint data.

26

Page 31

This statement is misleading. DCA does not yet have a Fly Quiet program; DCA has a historical summary document with some new charts

27

Pg. 35

Pg. 36

(10) Public Online Portal to Access/Analyze Flight and Noise Data

Summary: In addition to providing information on noise complaints, the Airports Authority has developed an online portal that allows the public to access and analyze data on flight tracks and noise-monitor readings. This portal allows tracking and monitoring of flights from DCA and their noise impacts along flight paths.

​

Background: The Airports Authority publishes its noise monitor data and monthly summaries for aircraft noise monitors around DCA and IAD. This data can be downloaded in Excel to enable the public to examine the data in the method of their choosing. An example of the data provided is below.

CWG members represent the public and need an SME to analyze noise data to make informed win-win recommendations to air carriers

28

Pg. 37

???????

The CWG has no idea what report MWAA is referencing here

Pg. 38

…………………………

How can we do

this without

data, analysis and SME provided conclusions?

(12) Communications with / Recommendations to Airlines

Summary: The Airports Authority communicates with airlines periodically to convey information or requests regarding aircraft noise and to encourage compliance with noise-abatement procedures and provides a publicly available annual report to airlines on compliance with Fly Quiet Program requests and related metrics.

In response to increasing complaint volumes regarding specific noise-related issues, the Airports Authority relays community concerns to airline management for their consideration and potential action. The DCA Community Noise Working Group also may formulate recommendations and requests to the airlines serving DCA and communicate with airlines through its interactions with the group’s two airline representatives.

29

Pg. 45

Very enlightening, but – Why?

Beyond perimeter flights?

Slot limitations for certain air carriers?

Something else?

NEEDS FURTHER ANALYSIS

Bottom line . . .

• CWG members represent communities that are suffering under NextGen channelization – both noise and health impacts
• The airlines profit from of their operations - and yet at the same time, seem willing to do what they can to mitigate their impact
• Given this, the public feels that MWAA has a responsibility to provide data and analysis so that CWG members can better engage with airlines
• Only data regarding noise, air carriers, go arounds, slot rules and other analysis can reveal opportunities for noise mitigation now that our engagement with the FAA re. flight path changes is mostly complete
• Less than 0.1% of funds earmarked as airline refunds would provide analysis which could help to mitigate the negative impact of DCA operations on the environment
• Recommendations to airlines would primarily be voluntary �
• American Airlines has indicated support for a FQ program at DCA

​

​

30

Proposed Recommendation #31

The DCA Community Working Group and local governments recommend that MWAA budget/fund a Fly Quiet program with outside contractor support that both rates air carrier performance and provides opportunities for the Working Group to request targeted data and analysis.

31