RamerinianAir From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4003 times:
The FAA is implimenting a temporary cap and requirement for all carriers at LGA next week. They will study the effects and then release a more permanent restriction when the current one expires on January 1st.
The FAA is keeping the 75 departures per hour limit but, will inforce new quarter hour rules too. I am guessing that many flights that leave at 5:59/6:59/7:59 are scheduled there because the next hour is full.
The current average of 98 seats per airplane is going to be replaced by either a 105, 116, or 122 limit. Exemptions will exist for small communities that are being served from LGA.
The FAA is looking into implimenting arrival authorizations which will act like slots. In addition, the new slots or authorizations will expire every 10 years. It's proposed to stagger them to expire half every 5 years.
If you want a link, let me know if it is lawful to post an article from a pay-based site.
SR
JFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1924 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
Thanks for starting this.
There was an article in the New York Post yesterday.
Basically, as most of us knew all along, the FAA can not let the slots at LGA expire because the airport is overcapacity at all times of the day.
Many of us have been calling for using the slots for larger planes instead of RJs to increase airport capacity.
It looks like the FAA will finally start forcing airlines to use larger equipment at LGA. Smart move for a slot-controlled airport.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 14920 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3867 times:
Quoting RamerinianAir (Thread starter): The current average of 98 seats per airplane is going to be replaced by either a 105, 116, or 122 limit.
They can reduce the congestion at LGA and still grow the passenger numbers by reducing the Regional flights, let Ithaca, Elmira, Harrisburg etc get their DH-8s or what ever but CLE, CVG, CMH, YYZ, YUL, RDU, IND, DTW, BOS (AA), DCA (AA) (etc..) should be larger aircraft (A319, DC9, 737-300/500/700/800/900 etc).
Ezra From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 443 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3855 times:
I wonder if this will cause DL to reinstate JFK-JAX service?
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6474 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3836 times:
Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 1): It looks like the FAA will finally start forcing airlines to use larger equipment at LGA.
I can't see RDU being able to handle the additional capacity.. which would mean a lost of frequency.. what with AA having the RDU-NY shuttle and US having a mini version.. PLUS AA doesn't really have the aircraft to fit the new 105-122 seat range.. Unless they are about to order some E90 to go with their ERJ.
Having RDU going from 20 RJ to LGA to 10 (whatever AA can find) + 4 E70/CR7/732 (DL) + 6 E70/CR7/E90/CR9/319/733 (US) is a HUGE jump in capacity. AND any movement of slots at LGA from RDU for any airline would allow B6 (most probable) to enter the market and take market share.
JFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1924 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
"Having RDU going from 20 RJ to LGA to 10 (whatever AA can find) + 4 E70/CR7/732 (DL) + 6 E70/CR7/E90/CR9/319/733 (US) is a HUGE jump in capacity. AND any movement of slots at LGA from RDU for any airline would allow B6 (most probable) to enter the market and take market share."
The thing is, LGA is a REGULATED airport. Free market enterprise doesn't mix well with regulations.
Free market enterprise says LGA-RDU should be served 11 times a day on American Eagle ERJs.
LGA Regulations (due to the fact that the airport is only 600 acres) say that the airport can handle 75 movements an hour. Why should 1 slot per hour for 11 hours be wasted on a 37-seat RJ to RDU, when you could cover the same number of seats with 5 slots a day on larger equipment?
Then the remaining slots could be deployed with other larger equipment to other destinations.
LGA is an old airport. Slots are an old idea. More frequency on smaller jets is a new idea.
The question I propose to all my fellow a.netters:
How do we mix old (but necessary) regulation, with newer market demands?
**AA serves LGA-YYZ on a Super 80, not only on ERJs...**
Too bad that no one operates the MD11, it would be nice to see that landing over the Grand Central Parkway, or over Shea Stadium during the World Series!
RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 808 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
DCA also has a proliferation of flights that are scheduled to depart xx:59. I always assumed that was due to allocated slots in a given hour.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20283 posts, RR: 62 Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3575 times:
CO already flies 1/2 the CLE-LGA flights on 737s. 2x735, 2x73G, 3x145, 1x135 on Sep 8, for example. They fly 10x737 from IAH. That puts their average over 98 seats per flight. It's over 115 per flight. They don't need to adjust anything most likely.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3391 times:
Looks like we are seeing the main market where DL wants to replace 50-seat RJs with 70-76-seat RJs . Should help in a few multiple-frequency markets like RDU or JAX
.
Quoting Ezra (Reply 3): I wonder if this will cause DL to reinstate JFK-JAX service?
Quoting B6DC10 (Reply 6): Too bad that no one operates the MD11, it would be nice to see that landing over the Grand Central Parkway, or over Shea Stadium during the World Series!
Good luck getting the MD-11 into most of the gates .
RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 808 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
75 movements an hour is both landings and takeoffs. That is also optimal conditions. Throw in 20 kt winds from the SW or NW that essentially limits LGA to the one runway, and capacity drops in a dramatic fashion. That's where we see ground holds when the layman thinks the weather is sunny and great. Thunderstorms anywhere along the arrival/departure corridors... again, things grind to a halt. There is no "extra' airspace in the greater NYC area to divert around CBs.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6002 posts, RR: 39 Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 5): LGA is an old airport. Slots are an old idea. More frequency on smaller jets is a new idea.
The question I propose to all my fellow a.netters:
How do we mix old (but necessary) regulation, with newer market demands?
Well, the answer to this is fairly simple. The fact that most of the slots were awarded to their holders at no cost tends to distort their true economic value. If you want the market to assure the highest and best use of a constrained resource (limited airfield capacity at LGA), you auction licenses for most or all of the slots periodically, with certain maximum limits with respect to how many slots an airline may hold. With a higher economic cost for a slot, perhaps using it for a 37-seat RJ to RDU isn't quite as attractive unless the fares paid for that flight justify it. If you want to guarantee some level of service to smaller communities, provide free or reduced-cost slots for them at off-peak hours.
Making slots more costly to the airlines should make the use of smaller jets less attractive.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20283 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2995 times:
Or you might sell the slots on a sliding scale. The more you buy, the more each slot costs incrementally. Or you could combine that with destinations, so airlines pay nearly nothing for the first slots to any destination, but then as more frequency gets added to a destination, the cost of the slot goes up. This might encourage an airline to not offer 10 non-stops to IAH including a few smaller 737s if the 10th one is really expensive, when they could offer 9 to IAH and add one frequency to an unserved market at no cost...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
CentPIT From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 990 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2884 times:
Quoting Belizexp (Reply 8): So it look like the major will have to upgrade or drop RJ to place like CLE, PIT, PHL, JAX, MIA, DFW and ORD very interesting move on the FAA part.
Currently PIT-LGA:
US Airways: (2 CRJs, 2 A319, 1 B733, and 1 A320)
American Airlines: (3 ER3s and 1 ERD)
US will probably just drop both RJ flights, or add 1 E90 to replace both RJs.
AA on the other hand is a mystery!
Pittsburgh International: US Airways---160 daily departures! (52 destinations)
RamerinianAir From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
AA has enough other traffic to balance off their ERJ flights. They have a huge MD-80 operation and there are a few 757s jumpin around LGA for them - they will be fine. It looks like this will hurt US' operation the most.
SR
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4471 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
Quoting RamerinianAir (Thread starter): If you want a link, let me know if it is lawful to post an article from a pay-based site.
SLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 3814 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 13): Making slots more costly to the airlines should make the use of smaller jets less attractive.
How about WN? Offering 737 service into LGA or even DCA is something they seemingly would jump at very quickly.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
JFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1924 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2418 times:
"AA has enough other traffic to balance off their ERJ flights. They have a huge MD-80 operation and there are a few 757s jumpin around LGA for them - they will be fine. It looks like this will hurt US' operation the most.
SR "
Bingo. You hit it on the head. Keep in mind, the average number of seats per plane will have to be over 100.
Carriers such as AA and DL will be able to keep their RJ ops in place with little effect because they off set the 37 and 50 seat RJs with MD80s, 737s, 757s, and 767s.
US, which in my opinion squanders their slots, will finally have to clean up their mess of ERJs, CRJs, Saabs, Beechs, and Dashs.
I think US is the least efficient at LGA in terms of the seat to slot ratio.
On a surprising note, I think UAL is the most efficient with their slots. While they have a rather small operation, a good chunk of flights are on 757s and A320s with only a handful of RJs to IAD.
Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2376 times:
Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 5): The thing is, LGA is a REGULATED airport. Free market enterprise doesn't mix well with regulations.
Free market enterprise says LGA-RDU should be served 11 times a day on American Eagle ERJs.
LGA Regulations (due to the fact that the airport is only 600 acres) say that the airport can handle 75 movements an hour. Why should 1 slot per hour for 11 hours be wasted on a 37-seat RJ to RDU, when you could cover the same number of seats with 5 slots a day on larger equipment?
I don't get it. Regulations are the only thing that make LGA useful to anybody. Can you imagine how delay prone LGA would be without slots?
LGA is a perfect case for intelligent government management, to allow the market to function in the first place. Now, the perimeter rule, I agree that's pointless govt nonsense.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 9154 posts, RR: 63 Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
With my numbers (feel free to do it yourself and tell me if I got anything wrong), AA's upcoming winter schedule would not adhere to even the existing, more lenient standard, let alone one given more teeth.
Currently scheduled for the month of December 10-16, 2006, AA has a total of 405 mainline departures, and Eagle a total of 416 departures. Combined, 28 cities are served with a total of 821 departures, and an average of 88.6 seats per departure.
"The airline industry is like church - many attend, few understand." - Robert L. Crandall
Knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2305 posts, RR: 33 Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
The T100s from this past May (2006) come up with the following actual average seats per departure:
157 ATA
156 JetBlue
147 United
138 Northwest
131 Delta
129 Spirit
125 AirTran
124 Frontier
107 Continental
97 American
88 Midwest
60 USAirways
If you exclude the US* prop flights (about 36/day), the US average climbs to 68 per day.
A330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 22): With my numbers (feel free to do it yourself and tell me if I got anything wrong), AA's upcoming winter schedule would not adhere to even the existing, more lenient standard, let alone one given more teeth.
Yes, from what I understand, AA will be hit much harder relatively speaking than US, because a very large number of the US Airways Express flights are to the small hubs and non-hubs that will be exempt from this upcoming rule, while nearly all of American Eagle's flights are to large and medium hubs. Additionally, US has a ton of aircraft in the 70- and 90-seat range with which to upgrade current 50-seat routes, while AA has nearly none due to the much more restrictive scope clause in their pilot contract.
That being said, I don't anticipate it being much of a problem for either carrier.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, 
From Belize, joined Dec 2005, 369 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
. Should help in a few multiple-frequency markets like RDU or JAX
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 30038 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
