The meeting came a few weeks after an orderly protest that I organized outside the senator's Manhattan office, which this newspaper featured on its front page. At the meeting, the senator pledged to do his best to persuade the FAA to reduce noise levels.
A year and a half later, we are still waiting.
Schumer is in a unique position here. He will likely soon accede to the Democratic leader's post in the Senate and, depending on what happens in November, stands to emerge as one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington.
It's nice to have friends like this!
So why haven't we seen Schumer come to the aid of his constituents? The reason is that the senator has been a key backer of the FAA's "NextGen" project, which aims to reduce airport delays by spacing airplanes closer together via GPS.
To get maximum results, the FAA now requires commercial jetliners to use more low-altitude takeoff and landing paths that cause maximum noise to people on the ground.
As part of this, noise-mitigation routes have been pushed aside at many urban airports, including LaGuardia, while the noisiest jets (especially MD-88's, 25-year-old airframes that are a mainstay of Delta's fleet at LaGuardia) get a green light to fly low and loud over formerly quiet residential neighborhoods.
By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, 5 percent of the people in Queens, Nassau and Brooklyn are now impacted by 95 percent of the noise that was formerly distributed across the airspace. The 5 percent now get 100 percent of the noise. (The FAA would argue this shows a 95 percent reduction in noise.)
Meanwhile, the airlines flying int and out of New York City have gotten pretty much everything they could want. The list in just the last few months includes billions in public funds for improvements at LaGuardia, more flights permitted at Newark by gutting the long-standing slot system, and major reconstruction of runways at Kennedy.
The stock prices of the major airlines - American, Delta, Southwest and United - are through the roof. Many factors explain the markets' new faith in the airline sector, such as the windfall from lower fuel prices, but a big factor is that the FAA always dances to the industry tune.
FAA has been merciless, not to say cruel, in imposing flight paths that benefit the industry, and this is reflected in the prices of their stocks.
What about cost? It is undeniable that high levels of noise are a cost to the well being of people on the ground. Doubters should Google a Harvard Public Health study in 2013 that shows more heart attacks among people living in neighborhoods impacted by airplane noise.
Or the doubters could read the emails I get from a woman in formerly quiet Auburndale, who goes to bed in tears because of the constant noise, or a lifelong resident of Flushing who sleeps in her apartment hallway to escape the noise.
These are costs borne entirely by people on the ground. The airlines reap the profit.
A critical vote approaches on FAA funding for the years ahead. Some time in June or July there will be an opportunity for Congress to insist that the FAA mitigate noise inflicted on residential neighborhoods to benefit an industry that has gone from being the perennial sick man of the U.S. economy to a darling of Wall Street.
It is clear that the airlines can afford to do better. A good start would be to retire those aging MD-88s.
Peter Rutledge is a resident of Bayside.