Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Regulating Regional Service In EWR, LGA And JFK  
User currently offlineB6ramprat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

With all the problems with weather and ATC problems which seems to be more serious then ever before, do you see regulating the regional jet service out of the NYC three major airport to reduce volume? I went by terminal 2 and 3 at JFK the other day (ramp side). Something I've never done in my 5 years at JFK and could not believe the number of CRJ and Dash 8's. This goes for American Eagle as well with all there ERJ service. Now this isn't a hit to those companies. Of course Jetblue has contributed to the conjestion cause but my point to all of this is should Freedom Air, Comair and American Eagle be forced to upgrade to at least a 50 seat jet into these airports or maybe even higher. I heard a few months ago on the local news that the FAA or Port Aurthority was actually thinking about this. What are your thoughts on it?


Racecar spelled backwards spells Racecar
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11523 posts, RR: 61
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting B6ramprat (Thread starter):
With all the problems with weather and ATC problems which seems to be more serious then ever before, do you see regulating the regional jet service out of the NYC three major airport to reduce volume?

In my personal opinion, artificially constraining demand is bad policy long-term. The more prudent and fiscally responsible policy, in my view, would be to expand these airports to keep up with the growing demand -- stimulated by JetBlue's low fares, population growth, etc. If, throughout history, the solution to sustained economic growth was to artificially constrain it so as not to tax infrastructure, we would all probably still be living in rural farming villages growing our food. A bit of an exaggeration, I know, but I think it makes my point: at some point, you have to either harm your economy and arrest the free flow of commerce, or grow to match the changing demands of consumers. In other words, you can't just regulate air traffic forever. On second thought, you can, but it can cause serious harm to our economy.

Quoting B6ramprat (Thread starter):
This goes for American Eagle as well with all there ERJ service.

Eagle has really added not substantial service out of JFK in several years. CLE, BWI and YYZ got 1-2 ERJs each back in 2005-2006, and ORD got 2 ERJs last year. In the scheme of things, that's nothing. Beyond that, Eagle's JFK schedule has remained almost unchanged from 2003 -- 4x YUL, 4-5x DCA, 6x BOS, and 6x RDU.

Quoting B6ramprat (Thread starter):
Of course Jetblue has contributed to the conjestion cause but my point to all of this is should Freedom Air, Comair and American Eagle be forced to upgrade to at least a 50 seat jet into these airports or maybe even higher.

I think the two biggest culprits, at least in the case of JFK, have definitely been JetBlue and Delta/DCI. JetBlue keeps adding flights left and right (understandably, of course, as JFK is their home base and largest hub) and Delta's domestic buildup with mainline and DCI has added lots of RJ and Freedom-operated prop (soon to be gone, thankfully) departures.

Quoting B6ramprat (Thread starter):
I heard a few months ago on the local news that the FAA or Port Aurthority was actually thinking about this. What are your thoughts on it?

I suspect that is where we are ultimately headed: eventually, the FAA and the PANYNJ are going to have to address this problem, because 1-2 hr delays at peak times, even in clear skies, and 4-6 hr delays during OSO, is just not sustainable nor economically viable any longer. The airports in the northeast need expansion and they need it now, but of course, the government being what it is, their solution will likely ultimately be -- as you suggest -- regulating the traffic flow at these constrained airports.


User currently offlineAdambrau From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

I remember reading somewhere that one of the ideas being floated was to restrict (or not allow) RJ's between a NYC airport and a carrier's respective hubs. So for UA, that would be no LGA/EWR/JFK - IAD RJ service and for AA no JFK-ORD. This does seem sensible in the hope that airlines are not penalized to continue to offer service to smaller cities that would otherwise not warrant it, yet at the same time alleviate some of the congestion by using bigger planes. It is not clear to me how such a policy would be devised or enforced, especially to carriers who's hubs are in NY themselves. I think the only thing that all sides agree to is that something needs to be done.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

So B6 overloads the system and the answer is to punish the competition with regulation? At least you admit B6 contributed in passing, but then decide it's not their obligation to stop expanding and maybe open up a hub elsewhere, but other airlines should bite the bullet to make more room for B6 (and DL, who is now also expanding out of JFK).

I mean, why not get on B6's case for using a business model of nothing more than 150 seat jets into NYC when many of their routes would support larger planes profitably? That was B6's choice. Why not A321s for some routes? 3 A321s could take the place of 4 A320s on many routes. They followed the WN approach but did it from a few key airports (FLL, JFK, BOS) rather than the broader spiderweb approach that is WN.

Same goes for CO at EWR. They have overloaded that airport. But CO is already cutting back on RJ in favor of mainline, because flow at that airport has spilled over the top of the dam already. And they have jets of all sizes to try to match demand with supply both in size and frequency. B6 doesn't have the ability to do anything but increase frequency when a route grows. And in a market like NYC, why is that more responsible than flying RJs? Both clog the system. DL and AA put 757s and 767s on routes when they can support them. CO puts 752, 753 and 739s. But B6 can only either add an E190 or another A320.

One solution is to increase landing fees. Marginal services would be lost and some flights consolidated. B6 might even be forced to buy some A321s. And if certain small markets want to keep their non-stop lifeline link to NYC, then they can subsidize the airline serving that market to compensate for the increased fees. That way, they are transferring money into the PANYNJ to compensate for overloading the network with marginal flights.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirlineEcon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

This situation is a classic example of the "tragedy of the commons" whereby each airline has an incentive to do what is best for itself, but imposes a cost on everyone else--congestion and delays. Those costs are not internalized by each airline. The classic fix for this problem is to regulate the use of the common resources, take-off slots.

Other posts remark on some ways to regulate--limit RJ flights, increase landing fees, but of course there will be some inequities to the regulation. Jet Blue might get a good deal, while AA and small cities get a bad deal. But what is worse is to do nothing becuase there clearly is a bad problem.

I find it interesting that CO has been adjusting its ops at EWR becuase if congestion. This would be a case where CO essentially owns the commons and internalizes the congestion effects and takes suitable actions.

In the end it looks like they need a mega airport for New York.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting AirlineEcon (Reply 4):
In the end it looks like they need a mega airport for New York.

Well, the NYC metro area is not really growing in population, or at a lower rate than the rest of the country. It's the area around the metro area that is growing. Thus to keep loading flights into the metro airports seems like it adds motor and air traffic.

The move to Stewart/Newburg is a smart on. That region is actually growing. But of course everyone says "who wants to go there?" But if it's just O&D, sending people to and from Florida, it still takes congestion off. Same holds for an airport like Trenton. Just MCO and FLL and PBI and MIA flights would do a lot to pull congestion out of the big three airports. B6, to their credit, is doing as much direct Florida to Northeast as they can. No reason to connect at a hub when the only traffic is low yield traffic to florida.

As for regionals, there is no excuse for the multiple RJs on certain routes. But single RJ service is not unfair. Should new england not be connected to NYC because they can't support a 130 seat daily? I say that's unfair. That's about isolating people. But I also, as I wrote above, think B6 is a big culprit here. They are the only large carrier flying into the big three airports that doesn't have a 757 or above on some of it's routes. Everyone bitches about RJs at LGA, but most carriers that send RJs into LGA also fly 767s and 757s there. DL sends in multiple 763s, for example. So on average, a 763+RJ on two slots is no better or worse than B6 with 2xA320s on 2 slots at JFK. 300 seats is 300 seats...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
DL sends in multiple 763s, for example. So on average, a 763+RJ on two slots is no better or worse than B6 with 2xA320s on 2 slots at JFK. 300 seats is 300 seats...

That's true, except for the fact that DL doesn't have that kind of balance in it's departure mix at JFK. DL has around 25 widebody departures, 50 narrowbody and 125 RJ/prop departures. So if you were to calculate the average number of seats per departure, I think you'd find that DL is quite a bit lower than JetBlue.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
That region is actually growing. But of course everyone says "who wants to go there?" But if it's just O&D, sending people to and from Florida, it still takes congestion off. Same holds for an airport like Trenton. Just MCO and FLL and PBI and MIA flights would do a lot to pull congestion out of the big three airports.

I agree that using some of these regional facilities will help a little. However, the amount of relief is pretty small and these flights still take up airspace in NYC which is part of the problem. Another idea is for the US gov't to really invest in high-speed rail along the NE corridor. That would provide relief on many of the short-haul routes. There's no reason to have 40xdaily flights on DCA-LGA.


User currently offlineISP From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
They are the only large carrier flying into the big three airports that doesn't have a 757 or above on some of it's routes.

US Airways does not fly 757's into any NYC airport.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

The biggest problem-makers in NYC aren't the other hub airports feeding into it like the ORD-JFK talk here...

Look at the number of RJ's from RDU and CMH to NYC. It's the airports like that which are the biggest problem makers. When competing airlines are running 50 or less seat RJ's side by side into NYC all day long on insane frequencies... you've got a problem. It's bad enough when one airline is going 7x, but when 3 are you've got a mess.


User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):
In my personal opinion, artificially constraining demand is bad policy long-term. The more prudent and fiscally responsible policy, in my view, would be to expand these airports to keep up with the growing demand

Ya, but in the short term that's not about to happen and even a decision now means something would happen 8-10 years away. The problem is that JFK has lifted all slot restrictions so anyone can fly in there whatever the hell they want, and everyone else be damned. IIRC this was the case at LGA a few years and every evening was an ATC nightmare. But in 2001 slot allocations went into effect and the place became much more manageable (no where near ideal, but better). The same needs to be done at JFK until any expansion projects take place. If DL as an example gets 150 daily slots, they will think twice about sending 2 dash-8's to IND at 4pm and 6pm and may want to send one 737 at 5pm. I agree that more runways and capacity is needed, but the problem is today, the solution needs to happen fast.



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting WJ (Reply 9):
If DL as an example gets 150 daily slots, they will think twice about sending 2 dash-8's to IND at 4pm and 6pm and may want to send one 737 at 5pm.

No, it would just be one MD80 at 6pm, so it doesn't help peak congestion...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
No, it would just be one MD80 at 6pm, so it doesn't help peak congestion...

What's your point? You limit departures, airlines consolidate departures, result = less departures. JFK evening peak starts earlier and earlier and by 5pm you are already looking at an hour takeoff wait. knock off smaller jets in favor of less frequent bigger jets, you will lose some flexibility but you increase reliability and you don't lose any capacity. If this exchange takes place with DL a dozen times, AA the same, US, UA, you can save up to an hour in departure waits. Its simple and its done in numerous airports around the world, so what's the big deal?



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

No, we need less Regulation not more. Almost all of the so-called problems would be sorted by getting rid of the existing regulations, in particular the 'perimiter rule' the limits flights to/from LGA to points in the east.

Get rid of the rule and you would immediatly see an increase in aircraft size, as everyone would be falling over themselves puttling on flights to the west coast and who knows, even long-haul international flights (with appropriate aircraft - but if you can have a B757 flying from BDL, why not LGA?)

Government regulation should be limited to safety and security. Nothing else, let the market decide.


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Iagree that there are too many RJs are the NYC area airports. Politicians will never allow any type of regulation...what would get cut? Routes like BTR/JAN/BHM-LGA are too high profile...I would be in favor of a 70 seat minimum at LGA, that would still allow for CRJ-700s and EMB-170s but get rid of all the CRJ adn ERJs. I might allow props to still operate so that small communities in Upstate and New England would still have a air link.


One thing Port Authority could do is raise landing fees for RJs. Since LGA isnt a hub, conjestion pricing might work


User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 12):
No, we need less Regulation not more. Almost all of the so-called problems would be sorted by getting rid of the existing regulations, in particular the 'perimiter rule' the limits flights to/from LGA to points in the east.

Get rid of the rule and you would immediatly see an increase in aircraft size, as everyone would be falling over themselves puttling on flights to the west coast and who knows, even long-haul international flights (with appropriate aircraft - but if you can have a B757 flying from BDL, why not LGA?)

Which planet are you living on??? Your point makes no sense at all. Get rid of perimeter rule and see an increase in aircraft size? Where do you get that from? Most airport in the world have some type of restriction: Time of operation, size of aircraft, landing slots, gate availability, noise curfews and restrictions and so on. Its when there are no rules is when you get problems such as planes stuck on the runways for hours before getting a gate, takeoff waits of 4-5 hours and the rest of the much publicized misery associated with todays travel. Funny how all these recent event happened at JFK which has no such restriction. Would seem pretty reasonable to deduce that there is a problem at that airport, don't you think?



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2071 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 13):
I might allow props to still operate so that small communities in Upstate and New England would still have a air link

Let them stop at two of those airports on the way to JFK or LGA. Just because you want them to have a connection to New York, doesn't mean it has to be non-stop. Any route that can't support Q400 or CRJ700 with a one-stop setup, shouldn't get direct access to NYC.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4447 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 15):
Let them stop at two of those airports on the way to JFK or LGA. Just because you want them to have a connection to New York, doesn't mean it has to be non-stop. Any route that can't support Q400 or CRJ700 with a one-stop setup, shouldn't get direct access to NYC.

You know, that's an interesting point you bring up.

Back in pre-deregulation (1978 and earlier) days, airlines would do this quite a bit. Best example was NW and their use of the DC-10 on a run from MSP to SEA, stopping at several small city airports in Montana along the way.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting WJ (Reply 9):
If DL as an example gets 150 daily slots, they will think twice about sending 2 dash-8's to IND at 4pm and 6pm and may want to send one 737 at 5pm.

Since when does Delta send dash 8's to Indy?


User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 17):
Since when does Delta send dash 8's to Indy?

i'm not sitting here with DL's schedule, I don't know where where they are sending their dash's from JFK to, they are going somewhere. It's what you would call an example...



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9592 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Limiting the size of aircraft won't be good since that will eliminate service to smaller airports. Limiting the number of flights has the same effect. It ends service to smaller destinations.

My personal opinion is that frequency on routes needs to be limited. Bigger planes, and less flights are needed. Passengers don't necessarily want that, but it is good for them. It would have the same effect of banning cars and making everyone use buses. Its less convenient, but overall more people can travel in the same given space.

With my policy, an airline would have restricted capacity. No route should have more than 4 daily flights on any airline if the aircraft have a capacity less than 150 people. Planes under 100 seats should be limited to only 3 daily flights on a specific route. I would allow exceptions though. Airlines could pay double the landing fee to operate extra flights to popular destinations with smaller planes. This would give airlines incentives to operate to smaller destinations in the country since those flights would be cheaper to operate based on landing fees than those to popular destinations. That would stop airlines like American Eagle from operating a shuttle type service from LGA with planes that are small and just waste space at the airports.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3091 times:

I don't think heavy regulation is needed...But surely there should be a cap on the number of RJs scheduled at JFK from 5-8PM....

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting WJ (Reply 11):
What's your point? You limit departures, airlines consolidate departures, result = less departures.

The new york airports get most congested at peak times. If you limit frequency, you will NOT cut flights at those peak times, you will just put larger planes at those same times.

Your example was a 4pm and 6pm flight. You won't magically make demand "average" to 5pm on this flight, as these 6-8pm flights are the "get home after business day" flights. So all it does is take away a flight from earlier in the day, make all those pax spend more time in NYC, and still have a 6pm flight.

LHR won't get magically decongested during peak times if you cut flights at 2pm and neither will the NYC airspace.

An RJ ban or restrictions would NOT cut congestion at peak times. It would only cut frequency at non-peak times, and even in NYC, there are those times.

The answer is as I've stated above: take leisure travel out of the big three airports when possible. It would help with road and air congestion. Business travelers want to fly into the main city. But leisure travelers would rather fly from airports close to home and not connect if possible. Flights to Florida from Trenton, Stewart, Albany, White Plains, etc. will help. And, lo and behold, airlines are adding these flights!

The other way to help with congestion is to rejigger the airspace. This is being done as we type.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
Your example was a 4pm and 6pm flight. You won't magically make demand "average" to 5pm on this flight, as these 6-8pm flights are the "get home after business day" flights. So all it does is take away a flight from earlier in the day, make all those pax spend more time in NYC, and still have a 6pm flight.

You are getting caught up on some random example details and missing my point. If you limit the number of flights an airport can accept during the day or during peak periods, airlines will consolidate service. Taking out a 2pm time slot is unnecessary so it wont be needed, but cut a 5-8 pm activity by 20% across the board and the airlines will be forced to rethink their schedule. Demand is a constant but the airports have to limit activity to what is actually available during certain periods or you will keep seeing these service nightmares around the NYC area. If that happens, the first ones to go would be the RJ's and alike.



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting WJ (Reply 18):

i'm not sitting here with DL's schedule, I don't know where where they are sending their dash's from JFK to, they are going somewhere. It's what you would call an example...

They're going to places within a range that makes an RJ FAR too inefficient to run. CO is going to start running Q400's out of EWR to most of these same cities. Places like MHT and BDL were examples of the DL Dash 8s. Places where an RJ would get to the same (or lower) cruise altitude and gain next to nothing in block times because the flights are so short. Therefore there isn't a da*n thing wrong with those Dashes, they're taking the same airspace that the CRJ would on those short hops and are doing it in a much more fuel efficient way. On the other hand, a JFK to IND Dash 8 would be insanely (impossible due to weight restrictions?) long. Check a map for those distances, and compare them to the aforementioned cities that actually do receive Dashes from Delta.

Quoting WJ (Reply 22):
You are getting caught up on some random example details and missing my point.

Seems to be a theme with your posts in this thread.


User currently offlineWestIndian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
Same goes for CO at EWR. They have overloaded that airport. But CO is already cutting back on RJ in favor of mainline, because flow at that airport has spilled over the top of the dam already. And they have jets of all sizes to try to match demand with supply both in size and frequency.

CO is actually replacing some of the Rj service with Dash 8's (operated by Colgan).



God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
25 RJpieces : Yes, but they are not reducing flights at JFK/LGA/EWR while they add flights at other nearby airports.
26 Post contains links HPAEAA : Comvmavia, what demand constraints are you referring to? Agreed, but at LGA they have a few more....... Acela, www.amtrak.com to make a reservation..
27 Asuflyer05 : Why not just leave it unregulated and let the market determine the outcome? Eventually passengers will get sick and tired of 2 hour GDPs and start cho
28 HPAEAA : while some connect, I focus on nonstop, let's face it... I fly to CLE, CMH, and DFW alot.. it's all nonstop.. and the reality is if AA gives up a slo
29 ANother : OK, I'll rephrase. Keep maximum hourly slots Keep buy-sell-lease rule Give up perimiter rule. US, for example, who have frequent flights to their nei
30 ADXMatt : What needs to be fixed is the airspace/atc in the northeast. We have an antiquated ATC radar system. We need congress to invest in the GPS system. Our
31 FlyPNS1 : Sorry, but Acela isn't real high-speed rail. It's faster than regular Amtrak, but it's still pretty slow. Most people in Europe and Asia would laugh
32 Davescj : I agree with many of the comments above -- and the fact that so many are repeated shows the need for a multi system solution. For what it is worth, I
33 LawnDart : You are sitting at a computer, so log on to delta.com and pull up their schedule. JFK was slot-controlled, but only during peak times (1500-2000?...s
34 Post contains links STT757 : This was in Thursday's Star Ledger, http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....ews-11/1183006175249500.xml&coll=1
35 InTheSky74 : I think that all flights into/out of JFK/LGA/EWR should have a minimum of 70 or 90 seats to be able to operate. No more 35 and 50 passenger RJ's. Ever
36 STT757 : CO is replacing ERJs with Q-400s on routes of less than 500 miles from EWR, depending whether it's a ERJ-145 or an ERJ-135 it's an increase of 22-37 s
37 ConcordeBoy : ...which would be about the worst thing you can do in an O&D market of NYC's calibre--- witness LAX. both BTR-LGA and BTR-EWR have been cut
38 HPAEAA : Let the carrier's decide what to fly in and out... just restrict the slots...
39 PGNCS : Nice in an ideal world, but totally impossible in NYC due to physical and political constraints. No, they would be falling all over themselves to add
40 N822ME : So Midwest Airlines should be banned from operating 88-seat Boeing 717s into LGA because it chooses to have 2 x 2 seating in the entire aircraft? Or
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United Airlines EWR,LGA Or JFK posted Mon Jun 7 2004 04:36:41 by Sdkualeb
Northwest ICN-NRT-DTW-LGA And JFK-NRT-ICN posted Sat May 8 2004 07:58:30 by Yongtaekim
RedSoxcharter ATL-BOS-EWR-LGA? And Delta Shuttle Q posted Wed Oct 15 2003 02:32:57 by Flairport
Who Works At LGA And JFK posted Sat Jul 19 2003 01:14:37 by Cancidas
Was There A Flight B/w LGA And JFK At One Point? posted Wed Sep 5 2001 23:15:39 by Mirrodie
Any B 777s For UA Between SFO And JFK/EWR/LGA? posted Wed Mar 20 2002 10:13:59 by United Airline
EWR And LGA And B6 posted Thu May 3 2007 20:26:54 by GoBlue
UA And PMD SFO Service In June? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 00:08:45 by AznCSA4QF744ER
MQ Begins Service Between LGA And YHZ posted Tue Aug 29 2006 17:55:17 by Cslusarc
DL To Start ATL-STI And JFK-PUJ In Dec posted Mon Jul 24 2006 16:12:22 by Panamair