The recent policy decision by Philippine aviation regulators to phase out turboprop flights from Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA | MNL | RPLL) by the first quarter of 2025 has sparked significant debate. While proponents argue that removing these smaller aircraft will ease congestion and improve operational efficiency, the justification behind the decision raises critical questions.
With NAIA now actively utilizing two runways and flight schools having already relocated elsewhere, why single out turboprop operations? Are turboprops truly the bottleneck in NAIA’s congestion, or is this policy an oversimplified approach that ignores other pressing inefficiencies?
Two Runways: A Game-Changer for Capacity
One of the primary arguments for banning turboprops from NAIA is that they slow down operations, taking up valuable slots and forcing wider separations between flights. However, this perspective does not fully account for the fact that NAIA is now operating with two active runways — Runway 06/24 and Runway 13/31 — which has already improved arrival and departure rates.
Historically, NAIA suffered from bottlenecks because it relied heavily on a single main runway. However, with the increased utilization of the secondary runway, overall throughput has improved, making it possible to handle a mix of aircraft more efficiently. The assumption that turboprops significantly slow down operations becomes weaker in this context. The added capacity should allow controllers to manage a variety of aircraft types, just as major airports worldwide accommodate a mix of jets, turboprops, and cargo planes without issue.
Flight Schools Have Already Moved: So Why the Extra Restriction?
Another major contributor to congestion in NAIA was the presence of flight schools conducting training operations in and around Manila airspace. These flight schools have since relocated to airports outside of Metro Manila, significantly reducing air traffic complexity. If training flights — which often caused delays — are no longer a major factor, then why is the elimination of turboprops being treated as the next necessary step?
Unlike flight school aircraft that often circled or practiced approaches in busy airspace, commercial turboprop flights are scheduled, predictable, and operate within structured arrival and departure flows. The removal of training flights already represents a major improvement in NAIA’s efficiency, further weakening the argument that turboprops alone are a major congestion factor.
Turboprops Serve Essential Routes: Why Force Passengers Elsewhere?
NAIA remains the country’s primary aviation gateway, and many essential domestic routes rely on turboprop aircraft. The assumption that forcing these flights to relocate to Clark or Sangley will seamlessly transfer passengers is overly optimistic.
Clark, while an alternative, is not as accessible to many passengers, particularly those from Metro Manila and nearby provinces who rely on NAIA for their flights. Similarly, Sangley, though promising, is still underdeveloped and lacks the infrastructure to absorb a significant portion of NAIA’s domestic traffic.
Passengers flying to smaller regional destinations like Busuanga (Coron), Siargao, or Basco do not necessarily have alternative transport options. Forcing them to depart from a different airport will only add time, inconvenience, and additional costs — something that contradicts the supposed goal of improving the passenger experience.
Global Practices Show a Different Story
While proponents of the ban argue that major airports worldwide have restricted turboprops, many large hubs successfully accommodate them. Airports like Tokyo Haneda, London Heathrow, and New York’s LaGuardia still see a mix of turboprops and jets. The key to efficient operations is proper slot management and air traffic control optimization — not outright bans on certain aircraft types.
Rather than focusing solely on turboprops, a more effective approach to easing congestion at NAIA would be comprehensive airspace management reforms, continued runway efficiency improvements, and infrastructure development at alternative airports before forcing airlines and passengers to adjust.
The argument that turboprops are akin to “tricycles on highways” ignores the broader improvements that have already been made, particularly the utilization of two runways and the relocation of flight schools. Instead of targeting a specific aircraft type, a more data-driven, holistic approach to decongestion should be considered — one that balances efficiency with accessibility for all passengers.