Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems  
User currently offlineJetBluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2977 posts, RR: 14
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7944 times:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...7-09-jfk-cover_N.htm#uslPageReturn

This article gives a pretty in-depth look at the reasons for the congestion problems at JFK and in the New York area. Further, it explains what is being done presently to remedy the situation. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

JetBluefan1


Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4049 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7905 times:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Thread starter):
This article gives a pretty in-depth look at the reasons for the congestion problems at JFK and in the New York area.

My comment in there as "Dave in SLC" pointed out how there are too many smaller aircraft such as CRJs have proliferated these airports. The problems aren't just what DL and B6 have done to JFK, LGA is an extremely popular airport with business travelers since it is closest to midtown Manhattan. EWR is a huge CO hub, and like the other two is prone to weather related delays as well as overall traffic at times. Go to the FAA main flight delay page: http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp and you'll notice that at least one (LGA) or just as likely two NYC airports have yellow, orange or red symbols indicating problems. Frequently I've observed all three showing red symbols. The FAA as well as the NY/NJ Port Authority need to do something about air traffic and travel into those three airports. Purchasing Stewart won't solve the problems, neither acquiring ISP will do any good either for that matter. I for one think a ratio formula for small CRJs along with a perimeter rule needs to come into play for all three airports.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offline787EWR From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

Great Article.

Thanks.

There have been a number of threads on the air traffic congestion in the NY area.

First, I think it is a credit to the professionalism and hard work of the Air Traffic controllers and what they have to deal with on a daily basis, not to mention when there are weather problems.

I also think that the number of regional jets in the region(not that many out of Kennedy) is a major problem. Comair, US Airways(Partners), Eagle and Continental partners simply flood LaGuardia and Newark with regional jets. I read an article in the NY Times where the author proposed forcing the airlines to use these regionals only during the "non-rush" hours between 10am and 4pm. Any services after that would utilize larger jets. He also proposed reducing the hourly service to major hubs like Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas every other hour and using at least a 150 seat planes for service(All three airports can handle larger planes, although LGA might have an issue on a hot day like today)


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7726 times:

But mandating big aircraft at those times will just result in mainline aircraft with 40 pax on them !!! That is an improper regulatory style.

You want to fix the problem, reduce the flying at EWR, certainly TEB, and LGA. Cut the number of slots! That is exactly what effective government must do. Set up a flight regime that CAN work. Leave it up to the airlines what equipment to use and where they should fly it. RJs have an important role. But by tightening slot restrictions, you will gently push airlines away from mediocre, redundant RJ services to NYC...


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7482 times:

Wow, a USA Today aviation article that at least looks like the author did some homework.

It seems to me the key question to ask in this situation is, what is there the capability to fix in the short term at low capital cost? Additional runways seem out of the question at all three major NYC-area airports, and even if possible they'd be hugely expensive to build. According to our endless threads on this topic none of the alternative airports in the region offer a meaningful alternative. That means somehow improving capacity at the three major airports is needed.

This article is only one of many pieces I've read over the years that indicate that the airspace around NYC could be redesigned for some substantial improvement. It would be an entirely just and fair use of Federal power to simply do NYC-area airspace redesign regardless of what local NIMBY's think, if the law allows it. ATC is Federal responsibility, and the FAA has a responsibility to maximize efficient use of airspace for both safety and capacity.

Too many millions of peoples' livelihood is connected to air travel, and New York is the single largest O & D market in the world. Tristate Senators and Congresscritters like Rep. Andrews are only a small portion of the national legislature, and the FAA and the rest of the legislature need to tell them sorry, this is a national economic necessity.

Jim

[Edited 2007-07-11 00:18:41]


Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7569 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

There is one thing I wonder. I travel to New York several times a year and usually I choose to fly DL or AM (and sometimes MX) non-stop to JFK. It is rare that I choose to fly CO to EWR and even rarer that I choose to fly one-stop to LGA. I have indeed noticed the congestion problems of JFK, but I wonder whether EWR really is a better option. In my experience, the lines to go through x-ray machines at EWR are always unbelievably long, and flights are also very likely to be delayed (both for landing and for take-off). My concrete question is whether EWR should really be the preferred choice for those of us flying to New York.


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7404 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
That means somehow improving capacity at the three major airports is needed.

I don't think so. There is plenty of capacity, it's just not allocated right. They could double capacity at LGA tomorrow, and cut delays. How?... trim slots by 10% and open the perimeter rule. Like magic.

The problem isn't just the 3 NYC airports... it seems we should include the region 1,000 flights at TEB/MMU, 500 flights at HPN, and so on. That means people are screwing up NYC airspace at no cost to them.

What if there were a NYC airspace congestion authority. They would make sure no traffic jams occur. How?.... by specifying a max regional airspace load, making operators bid for those ATC slots, and squeezing out the spoilers who won't pay their share.

As with all slots, they should be rented out rather than sold. This means you could fine tune the total whenever needed. This would solve the traffic jams (no matter what) and generate some funds for NYC airports.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9191 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7398 times:

I wish I knew what to do with the mess up in New York, but even someone with a transportation/planning background can't tell you that...


Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16856 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7256 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
Additional runways seem out of the question at all three major NYC-area airports,

If you read the article it states that additional runways (even if they were built) would do nothing as the AT controllers cannot handle anymore flights.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
My concrete question is whether EWR should really be the preferred choice for those of us flying to New York.

Well it's the closest, it's the first NYC airport, and unless something the writer of the USA today article knows that the Port Authority does not EWR and LGA handle more flights than JFK. JFK handles more travelers.

The article is about how bad delays are at JFK and they have four runways and less flights than EWR which has three runways.

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
As with all slots, they should be rented out rather than sold. This means you could fine tune the total whenever needed. This would solve the traffic jams (no matter what) and generate some funds for NYC airports.

No slots from an FAA perspective. Scheduling at will permitted as long as the LGA perimeter rule considered. COA put an RJ operation into LGA the first summer that slot control was abolished, and ATC simply responded with a ground delay program every day until the COA sked was pulled down. NY tracon (N90) is certainly part of the problem until the airspace gets redesigned. EWR is oversked every afternoon, unless there is no wind, no clouds, and no TEB issues that interfere with using runway 11/29 as the overflow., in which case EWR may get by with a groundstop. Otherwise, count on a GDP every day. COA only connects about 30% of their pax at EWR, so maybe 3 hour rolling groundstops or a gdp don't hurt them that much.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
I don't think so. There is plenty of capacity, it's just not allocated right. They could double capacity at LGA tomorrow, and cut delays. How?... trim slots by 10% and open the perimeter rule. Like magic.

Double the capacity at LGA???? With a single runway in and a single runway out?? And limited gate/ramp space??? So how do you land 60-80 per hour on a single runway (LGA's usual AAR-airport acceptance rate- is about 38-40 in VFR with no wind)???


Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The article is about how bad delays are at JFK and they have four runways and less flights than EWR which has three runways.

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

JFK virtually never uses 4 runways at once. It's usually two in and one out, or one in and two out during the big departure pushes. Watch how they lower the AAR in the late afternoon to accommodate the departure push. EWR can only use their 3rd runway (11-29) in the best of conditions as a landing overflow.

And yes, the answer will be airspace redesign.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5408 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7200 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

I respectfully disagree. The airlines schedules at these airports are based upon VMC arrival and departure rates. In most cases, the delays are due to simple math. If airport A can handle 60 Visual arrivals/hr and suddenly bad weather occurs ... guess what ... it now can only handle 45/hr or less ... not because of airspace, but FAA separation standards, ILS approaches etc. The result - the huge delays we see.

In most cases the current airpace allows aircraft to arrive at the maximum arrival rates ... but required separation in bad weather slows that down ... not the airspace itself. Agrred, there are some issues with runway configurations that restrict and limit the airports depending on the configuration in effect, but with airports so closely spaced, that's always going to happen to some extent. RNAV/RNP approaches are another move forward (EWR etc.)

I have no easy answer, but IMO hourly shuttles (which never run every hour) are part of the problem. But all the time airlines can schedule flights at these rates ... they of course will. I'm not suggesting lower the arrival/departure slots, and therefore forcing the airlines to use larger aircraft with less frequency .... but it sure would help solve the problem.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

If you read the article it states that additional runways (even if they were built) would do nothing as the AT controllers cannot handle anymore flights.

I did read the article, thank you, but I missed that item. But I did not advocate building more runways (though if the airspace could sustain them, I'd be all for them).

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

As I argued in my post.

I respectfully disagree. The airlines schedules at these airports are based upon VMC arrival and departure rates. In most cases, the delays are due to simple math.

Then why is the FAA convinced that redesigning the airspace would help? Apparently the routes are not arranged at maximum efficiency, and the delays are more than just a matter of an individual airport's hourly-rate math in varying weather conditions.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5408 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7125 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 11):
Then why is the FAA convinced that redesigning the airspace would help?

It would help for sure, but it isn't the problem.

You simply will never get the same VMC arrival rate during bad weather. If schedules are based upon the maximum arrival rates, it's irrelevant whether that is 75/hr or 100/hr, when the IMC rate is lower. That difference must go somewhere ... or most usually nowhere.

If you've ever sat at TEB on a Sunday afternoon, you'll see them arrive as fast as they ever will ... until somebody designs a radar cruise control just like the Mercedes, that sticks each aircraft exactly 50ft behind the one ahead ... now there's an idea  Wink

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7114 times:

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
Double the capacity at LGA???? With a single runway in and a single runway out?? And limited gate/ramp space??? So how do you land 60-80 per hour on a single runway (LGA's usual AAR-airport acceptance rate- is about 38-40 in VFR with no wind)???

Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
EWR is oversked every afternoon, unless there is no wind, no clouds, and no TEB issues that interfere with using runway 11/29 as the overflow., in which case EWR may get by with a groundstop. Otherwise, count on a GDP every day. COA only connects about 30% of their pax at EWR, so maybe 3 hour rolling groundstops or a gdp don't hurt them that much.

This is all very interesting and thank you for your input. It does sound like TEB screws up EWR which is quite ridiculous. It's like someone's driveway going out into the middle of I-95. The public is not well served that way.

Instead, just control the airspace. Create a market for this tight airspace. Auction slots to it. If billionaires want to clog up public airspace, let them pay for that privilege. If Delta wants to add more CRJs to JFK, let them pay the congestion price.

The point is, the congestion is causing great harm. The cost of slots is not important, just a tool to kill the congestion right at the source. Methods to do so after the fact (Like ORD's idiotic "no more" rule) are ham-fisted at best.

This is a problem that's already been solved in the books. NYC needs to read them and reallocate. The whole nation's air transport is getting screwed up by NYC's lack of problem solving skills.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7041 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

I don't understand. Cut the slots and eliminate the perimeter rule? Adding 100 new transcons a day? The problem is that we have too many flights as it is into LGA, adding flights is only going to make it worse.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 12):
You simply will never get the same VMC arrival rate during bad weather. If schedules are based upon the maximum arrival rates, it's irrelevant whether that is 75/hr or 100/hr, when the IMC rate is lower. That difference must go somewhere ... or most usually nowhere.

 checkmark 

This is a problem in a lot of places. I have always maintained that if an airport can only handle 36 planes in IMC, then there should only be 36 flights scheduled. For example PHL can run an arrival rate of 52 when the weather is good, and they are in a west config. In the east config the rate drops slightly to 48, and IFR is usually 36 when you lose the shorter overflow runways. PHL can handle this on most days, however if there is weather, it will cause problems.



In the new york airports the winds are also a big factor. For example, LGA has a better AAR in IFR conditions on the 13-22 config than they do VFR on the 31-22 config. But the difference between VFR and IFR at LGA isn't that much. They can get about 40 down in VFR and 38 in IFR. As long as they can keep planes flowing to and from LGA in these conditions, a 38 rate usually doesn't result in very lengthy delays, maybe a spin or two during peak demand. The problem becomes when you have convective activity blocking some routes into and out of any of the airports (Which happened today). The whole point of the airspace redesign is when this type of weather does hit, it will allow them more options to move traffic, where as right now if one small cell impacts a departure route, nothing moves, even though they can deviate easily.


The way I would do it in the new york airports is as follows. Limit LGA to 38 arrivals per hour, which if my math is correct would make about 76 movements an hour. Even if the weather goes down a bit, delays should be minimal. At EWR assume runway 11-29 is never used and treat it as a two runway airport (I.E. SEA) Since these runways are parallel, limit movements to 80 an hour, 40 departures and 40 arrivals. Over at JFK, Lower the arrival rates during the peak Int'l departure demand and vice versa for arrivals. Then implement the airspace redesign as planned.



That being said, here is a summary of what I think are the issues in New York. Too many flights without the infastructure to handle it. Airlines scheduling too many flights (I know frequency is a big deal, but what is the point of frequency if nothing is on schedule anyways, when you can reduce the number and run a more reliable schedule) An inadequate ATC system, and airspace not being utilized to its fullest potential. And also NIMBY's who are trying to hold up all efforts to modernize the airspace, as well as politicians fighting this. (most shocking piece in the article says that no current politician from the NY area has signed off on the airspace project, a shocker when you consider that Sen. Schumer has been a big aviation advocate for New York and has worked tirelessly to improve service) And an undecuated public continually putting the blame on the airlines shoulders. Yes they deserve some of it, but not all of it. And last but not least. The continuing battle over funding the ATC between GA and the Airlines means that necessary projects like this get their funds delayed because no one knows where the money will be coming from. But that debate belongs in another thread.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7027 times:

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
JFK virtually never uses 4 runways at once.

I've never seen them use all four. I've seen three on numerous occasions, more often two, but never four.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It does sound like TEB screws up EWR which is quite ridiculous. It's like someone's driveway going out into the middle of I-95. The public is not well served that way.

Well, TEB is already there, and it does bring a lot of jobs and money to the community. And it was there before Newark was. Not to mention that if you close it, all those bizjets are going to be heading for EWR, LGA, JFK and HPN, which isn't going to help congestion there much.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7020 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 1):
such as CRJs have proliferated these airports.

I think thats really one of the problems with aviation in America today. The overabudance of Regional jets, not to go away from the topic but airports like CVG, CLT, and LGA are just inundated with these aircraft. I know that frequency and time of travel is important to the US travel, hence we dont see larger planes doing longer routes, but seriously this to me seems like common sense, isnt having medium sized jets with lesser flights between cities better than serving it 12 times daily with a CRJ? It seems better for the environment as well, and better for a free-flowing airport/airspace. Its just abhorrent how much delays passengers have to deal with.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):

good research



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 10):
RNAV/RNP approaches are another move forward (EWR etc.)

As I wait for the article to load, sloooooow connectivity it seems today.....RNAV/RNP approaches are a help certainly, but only if designed correctly where the approach paths and altitudes de conflict the NYC airports from each other. That is the first step IMO, next is to ensure all operators are equipped, trained, educated as well as the controller workforce to utilize RNAV/RNP approaches, quite a few operators currently do not have RNAV let alone RNP approaches in their ops specs, so they don't fly them.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6897 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
Wow, a USA Today aviation article that at least looks like the author did some homework.

I would agree.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Not sure it is passengers as much as it is ability for the airplanes to avoid a gridlock situation and adequate gate space.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

You can redesign all you want but if you don't include new separation standards (and I don't mean a slight relaxing of separation standards as Sturgell speaks to in the article) then you haven't taken full advantage the tighter route containment that is available in aircraft today.

Think of it as tiny tubes of airspace both lateral and vertical and go from there thinking way outside of the box. If you can land airplanes in Alaska between rocks, have approach paths into numerous airports in other states using RNP values of .1, then why not expand that thinking to aircraft separation standards and do it NOW.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5408 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6889 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
This is a problem in a lot of places. I have always maintained that if an airport can only handle 36 planes in IMC, then there should only be 36 flights scheduled. For example PHL can run an arrival rate of 52 when the weather is good, and they are in a west config. In the east config the rate drops slightly to 48, and IFR is usually 36 when you lose the shorter overflow runways. PHL can handle this on most days, however if there is weather, it will cause problems.

Well, that's the only solution if you really want no delays when the weather is bad. We cannot have it both ways .. schedule as many aircraft as possible ... then expect those schedules not to be affected severely when bad weather prevails. If as you say, we limit the schedules to the lower AAR (IMC conditions), then 'in theory' there will much less impact when those conditions do occur.

Of course, many will say, why limit the schedules to 45 arrivals/hr 365 days/yr, when 250 of those days are perfect conditions and you can fit 60 arrivals/hr. Well, like I said, you can't have it both ways.

I not for regulation in general, but this isn't something that can be self-policed. Airlines will always try and schedule to the limits ... it's those limits that perhaps need more regulation.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
I know frequency is a big deal, but what is the point of frequency if nothing is on schedule anyways, when you can reduce the number and run a more reliable schedule

Yes, my big argument on many of these threads on this topic ... I see you all yawning  Smile I usually quote this weeks actual departure times for these high-frequency shuttles, just to show the reality, but I'll spare you  Wink

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17):
quite a few operators currently do not have RNAV let alone RNP approaches in their ops specs, so they don't fly them.

Witness the special non-rnav routes issued every day to ORD from the east and also the special non-rnav routes from DTW to accommodate NW's old DC-9's.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Sorry. Still makes no sense to me. I've been at LGA many times since 1970 when the airport has been packed full of pax...I do not believe IMHO that the airport, given the current terminals, access roads, parking, etc. could handle twice the pax it now handles. To add all these transcon flights (which I suppose you think would come from sked reductions at JFK and EWR, or do you believe that the NYC catchment area still needs 100 additional transcons..are there 100 total now?) during peak hours when people want to travel, and given your "new" AAR of 32-36 in VFR, other flights would need to be cut. I suppose high ticket business folks coming from BOS or DCA could wait another hour. Of course, dispatchers would have to really sharpen their pencils to get the MTOG on all these transcons, especially if there was weather on the other end and you were carrying alternate and hold fuel, given the 7000 ft runways and obstructions at LGA (try getting stuck on departing rwy 22 a couple times a year...not pretty). Anyway, the problem is not moving the maximum amount of pax, it's supporting a schedule of flights from the destinations that people want to fly. DL, TW, AA, NA and others used to fly DC-10's and Tristars to LGA back in the 70's, so they could certainly move pax. However, if busy business, government, or educational folks want to get from, say, CHO to NYC and not take all day, then there is a reason for that CHO-LGA flight. An airline like US could certainly find more profit in those 40-70 seats at a $400-800 fare than on a lowball transcon flight at $199-299, of which has been (since the 1950's) often sold as loss-leaders by the airlines.
Look at WN cutting lots of their transcon or near transcon service in the fall...just not as profitable.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 20):
Witness the special non-rnav routes issued every day to ORD from the east and also the special non-rnav routes from DTW to accommodate NW's old DC-9's.

I'm not even referring to those things which are a huge impact, I was referring to aircraft which are equipped but the operator doesn't train for the approaches so they don't fly them. Most if not all properly equipped aircraft are flying the SIDS/STARS but approaches no.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6823 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 16):
I think thats really one of the problems with aviation in America today. The overabudance of Regional jets, not to go away from the topic but airports like CVG, CLT, and LGA are just inundated with these aircraft. I know that frequency and time of travel is important to the US travel, hence we dont see larger planes doing longer routes, but seriously this to me seems like common sense, isnt having medium sized jets with lesser flights between cities better than serving it 12 times daily with a CRJ? It seems better for the environment as well, and better for a free-flowing airport/airspace. Its just abhorrent how much delays passengers have to deal with.

Not what people want. The business flying public wants frequency, since time is money, and are willing to pay for it. Don't forget that for most carriers, these folks comprise 25-40% of the pax, but contribute 70-80% of the profits. And add on top of it all the new carriers, new micro-jets, a robust fractional jet market, and the skies will continue to be more crowded, not less. I can't wait until the micros get flying, with 6-10 flights a day from say, PWK or DPA to TEB or HPN or TTN, each carrying a whopping 4-6 pax. More metal in the sky.

[Edited 2007-07-11 15:10:09]


A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6812 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 21):
I'm not even referring to those things which are a huge impact, I was referring to aircraft which are equipped but the operator doesn't train for the approaches so they don't fly them. Most if not all properly equipped aircraft are flying the SIDS/STARS but approaches no.

Concur. I've had my share of flights where an rnav or gps approach was offered, but we didn't carry the plate for it, or the fixes were not in our FMS.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5408 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6781 times:

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 22):
Not what people want. The business flying public wants frequency, since time is money, and are willing to pay for it.

Not necessarily true. That's what the airlines think they (we) want.

If you ask the question "Do you want more frequency between DCA and BOS", then of course the answer is "Yes" ... and that's why we hear this often misleading statement, that the flying public wants frequency.

Now go to DCA or LGA on a Thursday evening and ask all those same business travellers a slightly different question ...

"Instead of hourly flights, where the 6pm, and 7pm flight both actually depart after the 8pm flight (which is also 30mins late), would you prefer just a 6pm flight and a 8:30pm flight, both of which would be far less likely to be delayed?"

I think you'd hear a much different story. Those business folks, where "time is money", can now decide whether to get the earlier flight, or stay in the office an hour or two longer instead of the gate for 2hrs, and get the 8:30pm flight.

If business folks can't manage a flight every two hours, instead of hourly, because of their valuable time, then they should probably be using (or buying) the corporate jet. Of course, irrelevant since on the East Coast routes, the hourly flights are hourly by schedule only.

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 23):
Concur. I've had my share of flights where an rnav or gps approach was offered, but we didn't carry the plate for it, or the fixes were not in our FMS.

But at least this is something that can be 'fixed' ... one of the more easier solutions  Wink If in fact these procedures do actually increase efficiency.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
25 SailorOrion : I think the only way to solve NYC's traffic problems is using very drastic measures. The article says something about 1 million passenger operations p
26 SEPilot : This is a total red herring. I have flown into TEB and HPN a number of times, and I do not need to talk to NY approach control except to get transfer
27 Flightopsguy : I don't think the actual flights matter. We routinely jump on whatever is leaving when we get to the airport versus the actual flight we were booked
28 SailorOrion : "We" in Europe have little problems using this strategy. Also, with decent airport layouts, the capacity differences between CAT I and VFR aren't tha
29 Post contains links Flightopsguy : Check on the www.fly.faa.gov/ois page for the TM tips (traffic management) tips on EWR, and you will see special requirements for TEB ops that affect
30 Bond007 : I agree, but the frequency sure does if you are of the opinion that the airport is over-scheduled. If the solution is to reduce the number of movemen
31 Blueskies8 : I couldn't agree more. And on top of that if you've ever flown into or out of or even watched the arrivals and departures at TEB you'll see that it i
32 Flightopsguy : I totally agree with you! Federal slot controls should have never gone away, imho, as that would be the only way to control how the carriers sked the
33 TeleBlue : Of course - but that's while VFR. Try flying from PHL (or Wing's Field) to HPN on IFR and you'll be handled by a combination of NY approach controlle
34 Post contains images FLYGUY767 : 100% Agreed.. It is time for the ATC/FAA/DOT to sit down with the airlines and see why they need so many over-redundant flights with such small aircr
35 SEPilot : You have a point; I have only flown VFR in the area, and IFR operations are different. But I do believe that the impact of TEB and HPN on the overall
36 Flighty : I think they would do that, IF only the perimeter were lifted. Then the would need their slots for LAX, SEA, etc. And the RJs would get booted to JFK
37 Flighty : Oh, and I should add: Moving transcons to LGA will hurt JetBlue. And I think Delta and US would be very excited about that.
38 Bond007 : Hmmmm .... well, this is a tricky subject. From an ATC standpoint, the airline alphabet groups keep telling us that a Gulfstream is no different from
39 SEPilot : I'm sure they do. In all my flying I have never had a controller hold up an airliner for me; I have many times been diverted or delayed for airliners
40 Post contains images Bond007 : Are you talking VFR again ? Otherwise, no, all IFR traffic gets the same priority, unless for other operational reasons. Jimbo
41 FLYGUY767 : Slight adjustment LGA-LAX 4x, JFK-LAX 2x LGA-SFO 3x, JFK-SFO 2x LGA-LAS 2x, JFK-LAS 2x LGA-SNA 1x, JFK-SNA 2x (SNA Non Existing to NYC) LGA-ONT(ONT N
42 SEPilot : Yes I am. I would still think that they would divert the GA plane before diverting an airliner, but I could be wrong. Even though the rules say all a
43 DCA-ROCguy : What is the likelihood of the perimeter rule ever actually being removed at LGA? For instance, there's no chance of DCA's perimeter rule being lifted
44 FLYGUY767 : Alot of things are going to be changing over the new few years when it comes to the FAA/DOT. Business continuing as usual will cause this gridlock to
45 EddieDude : Thanks STT757. I do not mean to take this discussion off-topic, but how bad is EWR's congestion problem. My recent experiences with EWR notwithstandi
46 FLYGUY767 : I have heard Continental Airlines and Continental Express are near to being maxed out at Newark... -JD
47 Mir : LGA is the same distance from JFK as TEB is from EWR. Here's what the OIS has to say about EWR: Departures: When the overflow runway 11/29 is availab
48 Bond007 : Right, I guess most of this is common sense on behalf of the controller and pilot. This was less about you having less priority, but more about logic
49 STT757 : The Port Authority does not support the lifting of the perimeter rule at LGA, I can't think of any airline save maybe US that would want the perimete
50 Spacecadet : My feeling is that whatever anybody says, the chances of the perimeter rule being removed anytime in the near future are around 0%. The only entities
51 Post contains images FLYGUY767 : So very true, I have said this over and over again.. If it comes to ongoing delays they would chose less frequency and larger planes.. See Above.. Th
52 Post contains images N62NA : But the problem is, the airlines don't have the mid sized (250 seat) planes to do this. Back in the "good old days" UA, AA, TW, DL, NA, NW and EA wou
53 STT757 : I don't know, perhaps if the CO/UAL merger happens they might change the balance in the high end trans-Con market from NYC. I remember when DL took o
54 Flighty : The vast majority of the problem I feel is that out of around 5,000 regional daily flights, around 1,000 of them are private jets, and I am guessing
55 Mir : Which is generally what it comes down to. Not going to happen. And then those become overcrowded as well. The only way that closing TEB makes sense i
56 Bond007 : The busiest corporate airport in the world isn't going to close. TEB airspace is but a small issue here. Over-scheduling at the other airports is the
57 N62NA : Maybe not JFK, but definitely EWR would benefit as there is much less space available there.
58 STT757 : JFK has the worst performance right now, that's where all these dramatic instances like the B6 fiasco are making news. JFK and LGA had slots, EWR neve
59 Post contains images Bond007 : I don't believe it's truly an 'airspace issue' (as in airspace re-design), as much a pure volume issue. The fix is the same fix for both ... less ove
60 N62NA : Not wanting to pick a fight with you, because I actually agree with you most of the time, but has this been quantified? I think it's due to too many
61 Flighty : JFK sounds like an airspace issue to me. Does it not have massive runway capacity? Well if TEB is not interfering with commercial flights, then I hav
62 Post contains images Bond007 : This where we need to be careful What do you mean by 'interfering' ... rhetorical question, since I know what you mean, but as I mentioned before, in
63 STT757 : Volumes (total movements) at EWR has not changed drastically in recent years, delays have gotten worse which is a result of more planes from other ne
64 Apodino : Sometimes this is true but not always. For example, in a calm wind situation they can land on 22L and 13L with departures from 13R and or 22R. A peak
65 Bond007 : Right, which is way I suggested : I implied restricting traffic in/out EWR, LGA, and JFK. We are talking semantics. An 'airspace issue' as discussed
66 STT757 : In perfect conditions EWR operates all three runways, not often this Summer though.
67 SailorOrion : About JFK: JFK has had just under 400.000 operations in the 12 months ending March 2007, pretty much the same figure as LGA (less than 1% difference b
68 Flightopsguy : Arrival spikes (check the AADC on the ATCSCC website) and departure spikes, coupled with heavy fleet mix often reduces the "effective" AAR at JFK. No
69 Post contains images SailorOrion : Thanks, it seems that I have discovered flight operations as my new hobby Maybe I can get a job somewhere with that knowledge The arrival and departu
70 Post contains images N62NA : I would like somebody on here with tech / ops experience to explain how this is true. From my layman's perspective, I can't see how this can be the c
71 Post contains images 747fan : The main departure spike is in the evening when numerous transatlantic flights as well as a bunch of transcons and regional jets depart. Its not unco
72 Post contains links STT757 : Here's an article from the Metro Section of Today's NY Times about how removing the restrictions at JFK has caused these massive delays, the print ed
73 N62NA : Thanks for putting the link up to the NY Times article, STT757. But, my question still stands. How does reducing the number of flights at JFK have any
74 STT757 : I can only use my most recent experience as an example, my wife and I left for Las Vegas from EWR on Friday (7/6). Our flight was at 7:15 PM, we push
75 Post contains links N62NA : OK folks, I had a few more minutes free, so perhaps a picture is better than words. Check this image of current traffic coming in at 5pm local time to
76 WorldTraveler : A couple of thoughts which I don't think have been addressed here. 1. the USA made the decision post WWII that airlines and interstate highways would
77 Flighty : That is a great plan A. However, it will be hard to expand NYC area airports. In the meantime, why not use a plan B. Like, to fix the gridlock in 200
78 STT757 : Jetblue, the same airline which is credited for bringing low cost service to JFK, and whom is really the driving force behind the recent expansion of
79 Mir : The taxiway layout at JFK does indeed suck, but there's not much that you can do about that. I can see how a reduction at EWR wouldn't help JFK's sit
80 SailorOrion : Rebuild the wretched place! It's an embarrassment to John F. Kennedy, New York and the United States. SailorOrion
81 Revelation : Yes, but my understanding is a few taxiways are closed due to construction, so ground movements are part of the issue too. Both of these numbers are
82 Alitalia744 : without airfield and air-space improvements, it's only going to get worse given the huge upside volume opportunity airlines are seeing within the new
83 N62NA : But for the most part, they don't. Instead, we get stuck sitting on a hot, cramped plane for 2 hours in the penalty box at MIA (_____ insert favorite
84 Slider : It is an amazing and sad thing to read this thread and see so little attention--and blame--being placed where it rightfully should belong: the freakin
85 Post contains images Lightsaber : The FAA has indeed wasted BILLIONS instead of redesigning the ATC system. Time to implement a GPS based ATC... YESTERDAY! Short term. The issues are t
86 WorldTraveler : expansion doesn't necessarily require pouring a bunch of concrete... just using what is there efficiently. JFK does need more taxiways and there is l
87 Post contains links and images PHLapproach : People keep throwing this word "redesigned airspace". It's a bunch of BS and even the FAA can't think of the right words to say. I guess when people t
88 Bond007 : Please give us some examples regarding the NYC area, and we'll discuss. Jimbo
89 WorldTraveler : whether its redesigned airspace, revised procedures, or precision approaches there are plenty of things that can be done to improve air traffic flow
90 STT757 : That's why it's imperative for the FAA to approve the Integrated airspace redesign, the NIMBY objections do not out weigh the benefits. It's true som
91 N62NA : OK, maybe I didn't understand what you meant by "bunch up" before. You mean criss-cross, yes? If so, then I agree that they do criss-cross. I remembe
92 Bond007 : Well, I afraid the problem of huge delays during bad weather is very simple. You can have all the GPS based systems you like, and the best equipped a
93 IAHFLYR : You mean approaches with vertical guidance like and ILS? That isn't going to help a thing. If you mean a tighter containment in lateral navigation, A
94 WorldTraveler : the whole idea is that better technology gives you greater confidence when weather does go bad. You shouldn't have to cut airport and airspace capaci
95 IAHFLYR : Funny, I make no assumptions so I ask!
96 SailorOrion : A cloud doesn't cut airport capacity in half if the airport is laid out properly. (Parallel runways, ample spacing between runways, all taxiways ADG
97 Post contains links Bond007 : This is a 'good read' for those that haven't seen it. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...ance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/ Jimbo
98 WorldTraveler : which is why you have technology that can maintain the level of safety in a degraded environment such as bad weather. The NE has all kinds of problem
99 Boeing7E7 : Actually, in a multi-proprietary situation where one agency controls multiple airports there's nothing improper about it at all. Los Angeles will hav
100 Bond007 : You will have to accept it for many, many years. Until you have aircraft with zero wake turbulence, aircraft systems that can follow 1 mile behind th
101 STT757 : Besides the airspace redesign why not merge the slot control with larger aircraft ideas, for example at JFK no aircraft with less than 150 seats betwe
102 N62NA : Isn't the JFK issue a taxiway congestion issue? I think what you propose above would do wonders to alleviate the daily ground stops we endure on any
103 STT757 : EWR never had slots, does not need them. I was referring to JFK which just had their slot restrictions lifted, which cascaded into the Summer of dela
104 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : Ummm... you might want to change your tone a little... Math says with a GPS based ATC system you can reduce minimums. JFK currently has an optimum ra
105 Flighty : That might work, but you would see some airlines upgrading to mainline just to avoid that restriction. And carry 50% loads profitably. The healthiest
106 Post contains images Bond007 : I don't disagree. Airspace design and the latest technology will 'help' the situation ... there is no question. I just see an ongoing problem that wi
107 Post contains images Lightsaber : No argument there. But that is 10+ flights per hour that do not occur on the good weather day. How much is it worth avoiding major delays on the bad
108 Bond007 : Agreed, which is why one of my first comments on this thread, is you cannot have both ... schedules at max, and no delays when bad weather occurs. I
109 Post contains links Slider : Mike Boyd's latest rant is very topical: http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm "Some have claimed that there are too many airplanes in the sky. Th
110 RJdxer : Those of you who are pilots or are just familiar with the 123 rule need to remember at EWR it's 1 cloud, 2 planes, equals a 3 hour ground stop. They
111 Bond007 : Unfortunately, whether he's right or not, as is usual, he makes many bold comments with very little detail and no data to backup his claims. I don't
112 WorldTraveler : most of the issues you described are not weather dependent - which is when ATC most often gives out delays. Won't happen because even at LGA whih is
113 Post contains images Bond007 : Sure they are. Most of the delays are because the separation is greater during marginal VFR and IFR conditions. Until you have the technology when th
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...
USA Today Article On WN's Entry Into PHL posted Thu May 6 2004 20:44:17 by Tom in NO
USA Today Article On DL's Leo Mullin posted Sun Aug 31 2003 00:34:35 by LoneStarMike
USA Today Article On Lowfare Airlines. posted Fri Oct 26 2001 17:03:51 by LoneStarMike
Comments On This USA Today Article posted Mon Jan 30 2006 14:34:52 by CO767FA
Good Article On Spainair And BCN posted Tue May 29 2007 07:01:27 by MAH4546
Harsh Article On Maxjet And Their CEO posted Mon Jul 17 2006 17:35:48 by WJ
Interesting Article On MO And Wright Amendment posted Fri Oct 21 2005 16:28:19 by MrSTL
NYT Article On IFE And The Airline Industry posted Tue Mar 15 2005 15:02:46 by Bwi757
Airways Magazine Article On MDC And The MD-12 posted Mon Feb 7 2005 01:57:21 by Al319
JFK And LGA Traffic? posted Fri Sep 24 2004 21:40:32 by Aa777jr