ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13 Posted (14 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1786 times:
As more and more airlines add frequencies and routes, one of the world's most congested airports will surely become increasingly dangerous. With runways that are 3,000 ft. shorter than the average 10,000 ft, US Airways, Delta, Continental, and American building up massive amounts of additional frequencies and no room for land expansion, could LaGuardia overtake ORD and EWR as the nation's worst airport for delays?
As a New Yorker and a frequent traveller, I am increasingly worried about LGA. I always felt it was an obsolete and dangerous airport and a major disaster waiting to happen.
UAL-777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
I agree. I think while the whole regional jet age is proving to be wonderful for the business traveller, they will add significant congestion to ATC, especially at places like LaGuardia. Since they're low-profile and less powerful than the bigger jets, there's less required spacing. The airlines are adding them (especially Continental at LaGuardia) at an amazing rate. The airport is going to be crazy in a few years (it already is to some degree). There's barely enough space on the ramps right now, and there just isn't the land area for such heavy frequencies. I guess we'll just have to see...
Boeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1696 times:
I was just going to post the very same topic after seeing yet another announcement of new service.
LGA cannot handle traffic even on a perfect-weather day. I am concerned not only for safety and delays but access to terminals. It is, after all, a small airport by comparison of others with similar traffic. With so many new RJ routes, it goes counter to the trend in SFO of United using larger aircraft but fewer frequencies.
That seems to be needed at LGA -- but as we all know the yields are too high to give up the convienence of all those new flights.
Mls737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
I completely agree with you ContinentalEWR. A while back I was at LaGuardia and it just took for ever to take off (at least 40 minutes). There were at least 10 other aircrafts in front of us. Late afternoon shuttles are just never on time because they cumulate delays.
I think that LaGuardia becomes a very dangerous airport, because it is not suited for today's traffic.
It's too sad because I kinda like the airport. It's conveniently close to downtown NYC and I don't really like EWR all that much.
Madmax From United States of America, joined May 2000, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Right on Mls737, the location of LGA to the city is anything but perfect, just wish they could have found some better area to build the airport. I always avoid flying out of LGA when i plan trips. American's loads there are amazingly high out of LGA, and all they fly from there are MD-80s!! No offense to all you md fans, but American's MD-80s suck. The close proximity of the bay to the runways always has been a bad omen to me, and with DL flying their 76s out of there something is bound to happen soon.
Aa777dr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
So you guys are saying not to fly out of LGA?
I fly out of LaGuardia alot of times and the only bad thing about it is that the flights get delayed a good 1/2 hour to an hour. I do agree with all the points that have been made here. The last time we took of (TWA MD80) I notice that when the aircraft became airborne the water was about a good 15 - 25 feet below us. Is that normal? I got shit scared. I thought the aircraft was going to go in the water.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1637 times:
LaGuardia can accomodate the 767-200/300, L1011, DC10, A300's, and the
new 767-400. It's not the size of the aircraft that's the problem. The problem
lies with the fact that 1). the runways are short, 2). there is limited gate space
at the antiquated central terminal, where all flights other than those operated
by Delta, US Airways, and Northwest operate from 3). there is little room for
taxiway expansion, 4). it is surrounded by water and high density population,
5). it is overcrowded and always has been congested.
LaGuardia Airport is bursting at the seams and in the name of greed, the
airlines are bulking up there to get a sizeable chunk of the NY market. This
is perpetuated by the explosive growth in air travel thanks to the booming
economy, Continental's successful hub at Newark, Delta's ever growing JFK
operations, NY's popularity as a business, convention, and tourist destination,
and the fact that the Port Authority and FAA have neglected to modernize and
equip LGA with the necessary foundation upon which to operate such a busy
At any time of the day, a taxi to the runway lasts from 25 to 65 minutes or
more. Gate space is short. I cannot believe the FAA, NTSB, and the City of
New York are just ignoring this. There is the potential for a serious disaster.
I hope that will not be their wake up call.
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
I cannot believe that the FAA and the City of New York are continually ignoring the problems at LGA. On recent trips to the East Coast of the USA I have had the misfortune on several occaisions of flying out of / into LGA. (I fly to the USA several times a year on business from Sydney.)
The first time I was delayed I thought "It's just one of those things" but each and every time I have been there the delays have been terrible. A local told me at one stage that "this isn't a delay, you haven't seen a delay". As for the airport being dangerous, I tend to agree that as more and more traffic accumulates there will be problems. It's a sad situation that will only ever be fixed after there has been a major accident.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1602 times:
I think the state of New York ought to seriously look at building a fourth major airport to relieve the congestion at JFK, LGA and EWR.
My suggestion is to build an all-new airport out of the old airport(s) used by Grumman Aerospace on Long Island that will connect back into NYC using a high-speed rail link and "limousine bus" link. That way, LGA traffic can be limited only to BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle flights and/or a limited number of flights flown by regional jets. Secondly, this new airport will become the new long-distance domestic flight airport in and out of the NYC area, so JFK can concentrate on international flights.
EWR will keep its tenant airline status (more or less), given that Continental has a major hub operation there.
It's likely this new airport--if ever approved and built--will become a major hub for Southwest and JetBlue operations in the NYC metropolitan area.
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
I think that LGA should ban all RJ flights, and put on a restriction similar to DAL/Wright Amendment, but reversed. All flights will have to hold at least a certain # of pax-like 100-125. But if an airline doesn't have a 100 pax. or more plane(ex.-Legend), then it'll be the largest plane that they have.
Airborne From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
AirCanadaSFO apparently hasn't transited through LaGuardia and doesn't appreciate the seriousness
of the problem.
Rather than ban RJ's, I would severely curtail the
number of flights to secondary cities. LGA should
be used for ORD, DFW, IAH, ATL, BOS, DCA, and
all other high frequency markets. Birmingham AL
can be served from JFK.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
I agree with Airborne.
In addition, I think that the Port Authority needs to make mass transit more favorable for travel to and from JFK/EWR. After all, look at Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok airport. They have high speed rail lines from Hong Kong island directly to the airport.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
Whoa!!!!!! Wait a minute......if you limit LGA to destinations in top US business centers and cities like Chicago, Dallas/Ft.Worth, Houston, Miami, and so forth, the cost of flying will rise sharply. You can't turn LGA into a business traveller's
airport. That's not a solution. That is skirting around the problem.
What needs to be done is to limit the growth/addition of new flights until the
ATC system is updated with software and technology to cope with growth. The
City should invest heavily in fast, mass transit to JFK, where pockets of times
during the day, 11:00a-2:00p and early morning are optimal for adding flights
as JFK is not really congested until the evening rush hour of flights to Europe.
ISP is too far from NYC to make it a viable alternative to LGA and it sits in the
middle of suburbia. There would be severe resistance to growth at ISP beyond
a certain number of flights. However, Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY and some
of NJ's other small airports (Teterboro comes to mind) and perhaps the expansion of LGA into the bay (after all, CLK was built on reclaimed land) is
an option). Aside from infrastructure, the real problem is technology. The FAA is a dinosaur and needs to start thinking of real solutions to the problem of gridlock.
Pacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
After reading all this I'm wondering about the function of Teterboro Airport. It's north of EWR and is closer to Manhatton than EWR! I'm wondering the prospects of the smallest jets landing there. (717, DC9, 737 etc.)