Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA May Reduce Peak JFK Flights By 20%  
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6638 posts, RR: 24
Posted (7 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6811 times:

The FAA on Friday released it's target operation numbers for peak times at JFK. The aim for no more than 80 operations/hr from 6am to 10am and no more than 81 operations/hr from 3pm to 8pm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1192...3492565553.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It's not really the ideal solution, but since the FAA is a decade behind schedule with ATC modernization and the airlines lack common sense in scheduling, this is what it has come to.

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCaspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

Of course such a meassure can only be a short term solution. ATC modernization has to be the long term solution.

User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6770 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Thread starter):
It's not really the ideal solution

No, its not for the airlines, namely DL, B6, and AA who have recently been devoted to expansion at JFK. But it is for the passengers, who won't have to sit out on the tarmac in the takeoff que for well over 1 hour. They'll still have to wait, but not as long as they would without the 20% reduction. I know DL won't be very happy if this comes true, as they're going to devote JFK to another expansion of (I believe) about 10-15 flights, w/ most of them being transatlantic. So far they've announced 7 (maybe 8, I can't remember) Europe, Middle East, and Africa flights, in addition to the new Latin America routes they announces over the summer (I don't know if those have begun yet or not). Also, AA announces 3 new routes (with 4 flights, as JFK-STN will be 2X daily) that will begin out of JFK next summer. So not an ideal situation for DL, AA, and B6, but it will possibly reduce some of the frustration that pax likely experience when their flight is #30-something for takeoff.


User currently offline28thguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

I wonder if slot lottery will prioritize international service. It's not as if they are going to take away Royal Air Morocco's single slot, for example. In any case, it seems to me that JetBlue and Delta have the most to lose (and particularly JetBlue, as they don't really have any other hubs to which they can re-allocate the aircraft).

User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6638 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6729 times:

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 3):
In any case, it seems to me that JetBlue and Delta have the most to lose (and particularly JetBlue, as they don't really have any other hubs to which they can re-allocate the aircraft).

I agree, although AA is going to be screwed too. They have plans to expand at JFK, but it's going to be real hard for them to achieve that growth (and compete with DL/B6) if growth is impeded by slot constraints.

I think you're right that many of the foreign carriers with only 1 flight a day will largely be left alone. The big targets are DL, B6, AA and to a much lesser extent a few of the large euro carriers (BA, AF).


User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1571 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6716 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm... now perhaps AY will get later slot to make night flight to HEL, arriving at 10 AM local time, and then have better connection times to flights to BOM and DEL  Smile


Flying high and low
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6651 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 2):
I know DL won't be very happy if this comes true, as they're going to devote JFK to another expansion of (I believe) about 10-15 flights, w/ most of them being transatlantic. So far they've announced 7 (maybe 8, I can't remember) Europe, Middle East, and Africa flights, in addition to the new Latin America routes they announces over the summer (I don't know if those have begun yet or not).

I seriously doubt any international services would be affected. The flights that would suffer are all of those RJ flights around the eastern half of the United States. DL serves many airports with CRJs to JFK to connect to their international bank of departures.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7213 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6626 times:

JFK is not a slot controlled airport, so AY can fly when they want.

DL's have reorganised their flight banks to start earlier, and finish later - they are spreading their long haul schedule.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineVictor009 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

A380 is the answer here,

BA,VS,SQ,TG,EK,EY,QR, all have ordered so i guess rite time for these carriers to get on it as soon as they get their Gentle Green Giant.

Regards
VJC



XWB- The one to fly.
User currently offlinePizzaandplanes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6523 times:

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 1):
Of course such a meassure can only be a short term solution. ATC modernization has to be the long term solution.

Exactly, they should use the extra atc fees revenue to modernize the current infrastructure. This would allow more safe aircraft movements in the future.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

Quoting Victor009 (Reply 8):
A380 is the answer here,



Quoting Victor009 (Reply 8):
SQ,TG,EK,EY,QR

How does a carrier with one or even two flights a day switching to the A380 do anything to help? Does flying those one or two flights with an A380 magically make traffic go away? Currently, due to spacing issues, it would make it worse.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJetBluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2992 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 3):
it seems to me that JetBlue and Delta have the most to lose (and particularly JetBlue, as they don't really have any other hubs to which they can re-allocate the aircraft).

Not in particular. Keep in mind that JetBlue's latest expansion has been point-to-point out of other cities - mostly FLL and MCO. The only two new routes proposed for JFK right now now at POP and SXM, and those flights will leave in the morning or the afternoon - not necessarily the busiest times of day (though the POP flight will leave at 9:30am, which is the only time in the morning where there can be quite a line. But it's nothing like 7pm.)

The airlines that stand to lose the most at DL and AA for the reason that they want to expand their transatlantic ops, but most of those flights leave between 5pm-8pm - times that the FAA will regulate.

Overall, I think that is could be a win-win situation if looked at from this view: fewer flights will mean less competition, meaning that airlines can raise their fares and focus on routes that are only the most profitable. Further, less time waiting on the taxiway means less fuel burned, less overtime pay, etc. And - from a passenger's perspective - it means getting to Fort Lauderdale or Athens closer to the scheduled arrival time.

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4106 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 4):
I agree, although AA is going to be screwed too. They have plans to expand at JFK, but it's going to be real hard for them to achieve that growth (and compete with DL/B6) if growth is impeded by slot constraints.

And people wonder why UA gave up on JFK. I think that DL will just continue to drop increasing any CRJ service to JFK. They've already given up on the Dash-8 props, and I think increasingly you'll find that all three NYC airports will move more and more to strictly mainline service only.

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 3):
In any case, it seems to me that JetBlue and Delta have the most to lose (and particularly JetBlue, as they don't really have any other hubs to which they can re-allocate the aircraft).

I think DL will be the bigger of the two to lose out. B6 might actually be looking at other options, but remember they only fly A320s and EMB-190s into JFK. DL and AA use CRJs for some routes.
I think you'll find that Los Angeles, Chicago as well as New York City airports will evolve increasingly into mainline only airports based on the economics slot controls usually bring in. But they could take it a step further and outright but a ban on all props and CRJs. I know that will make many people VERY HAPPY!
Funny thing for DL, is that two decades from now they might be confronted with a similar issue at ATL.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineVictor009 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6431 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Currently, due to spacing issues, it would make it worse.

A380 has the same spacing restriction as 747, no difference at all.



XWB- The one to fly.
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6413 times:

Good. The number of peak flights is limited anyway right now by about 20%. They book more flights than can take off, so they build or plan the delays into every single day's schedule.
With less flights planned, all the one scheduled will definitely take off as scheduled. If not, cut a few more flights until those go off as planned.

Maybe JFK needs 1 or 2 more runways..


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6398 times:

What they need to do is get rid of all the RJs.... those things are a complete waste of airspace for the amount of passengers they carry. Replace them with a reduced number of mainline aircraft. Your city can't handle mainline aircraft? Well, too bad, guess you don't get JFK service then. JFK is too much of a premium to give everyone flights everywhere at everytime.

User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6365 times:

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 14):
Maybe JFK needs 1 or 2 more runways..

Really???  Yeah sure
Of course, that's much easier said than done.  Wink
The only way to do that would to somehow put one where Jamaica Bay is, but that's likely not possible due to environmental issues and the fact that they'd have to somehow elevate it over the bay due to that. However, I do believe there is an airport in either Portugal or Spain that does have a runway "bridge" over a body of water.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6352 times:

Quoting Victor009 (Reply 8):
A380 is the answer here,

BA,VS,SQ,TG,EK,EY,QR, all have ordered so i guess rite time for these carriers to get on it as soon as they get their Gentle Green Giant.

The A380 won't do much. It will definitely help BA. We don't need hourly service on a single airline between JFK and LHR. That serves no purpose. However, what needs to go away are all of those RJs. CRJs and ERJs take just as much space as 737s, A320s and 757s, yet there are all of these high frequency short hops.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6345 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 16):
I do believe there is an airport in either Portugal or Spain that does have a runway "bridge" over a body of water.

Yeah I've seen some beautiful take-offs and lands at that airport on Flight Level 350. If the Japanese can make KIX, and the Chinese can Make CheK Lap Kok, we should be able to enlarge JFK.

Where there's a will , theres a way.


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 15):
What they need to do is get rid of all the RJs.... those things are a complete waste of airspace for the amount of passengers they carry. Replace them with a reduced number of mainline aircraft. Your city can't handle mainline aircraft? Well, too bad, guess you don't get JFK service then. JFK is too much of a premium to give everyone flights everywhere at everytime.

 checkmark 

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 17):

However, what needs to go away are all of those RJs. CRJs and ERJs take just as much space as 737s, A320s and 757s, yet there are all of these high frequency short hops.

 checkmark 

I brought this up in an older thread some time ago:

There's an article about the congestion problems in NYC in Aviation Week, July 30th 2007. Basically says that there will be an upcoming airspace redesign that will allow more arrival and departure routes, that "demand management" (slot allocation, peak-hour pricing) will have to be implemented, that ADS-B would help a lot but many aircraft aren't equipped with it and it won't be mandatory in another ten years, and that all these solutions will help but the only way to truly solve the problem is to increase runway capacity - not an easy thing in NYC.

But the most interesting thing in this article is a table indicating the change in daily departures by aircraft seat capacity from 2002 to 2007. Check this out:

EWR:
- <100 seats: +33.7%
- 100-200: 2.2%
- >200: 0.0%

JFK:
- <100 seats: +128.0%
- 100-200: +119.6%
- >200: -11.7%

LGA:
- <100 seats: 35.0%
- 100-200: -6.5%
- >200: -100%

The numbers speak for themselves. The NY airspace is being clogged by a swarm of small regional jets transporting a handful of commuters on small distances that are generally below 2 hours.

Eventually, they'll have to go or the situation will be unsustainable. Airlines will have to be forced by demand management restrictions (because the current, no limits, free for all slot allocation and scheduling doesn't work at oversaturated hubs) to reduce frequencies and use bigger aircraft.


User currently offlineWj From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6269 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 7):
JFK is not a slot controlled airport, so AY can fly when they want.

This is a big point in cause of recent struggles. Yes, technology is behind, but JFK was restricted during peak PM times, a restriction that was cancelled on 1/1/07.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
I seriously doubt any international services would be affected. The flights that would suffer are all of those RJ flights around the eastern half of the United States. DL serves many airports with CRJs to JFK to connect to their international bank of departures.

Wouldn't call it "suffer" per-se. If the airlines are limited to a certain number of flights in a period of time, they will run the most profitable ones. It may just be a prime time high yield domestic business route, pushing the Int'l flight to a different time slot later at night.



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 offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

Quoting Pizzaandplanes (Reply 9):
Exactly, they should use the extra atc fees revenue to modernize the current infrastructure. This would allow more safe aircraft movements in the future.

Pax & airlines had already paid in the money to upgrade the ATC system, but the money is being spent in Iraq and we're going into the red more each day. Right now there is no money to upgrade the system or even increase health care for children.

As for JFK's reduction in flights the airlines are going to need to get to work figuring out how they will handle it. Moving planes around to get larger planes into JFK is obviously one way, as is using the old "milk run" approach for smaller cities.

I'm one of the lucky ones - I can go through ORD or DFW to cross the Atlantic.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21681 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 1):
Of course such a meassure can only be a short term solution. ATC modernization has to be the long term solution.

No, more runways and better airspace designs are the real long term solutions. ATC modernization is a nice phrase that doesn't really do all that much.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4106 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 15):
What they need to do is get rid of all the RJs.... those things are a complete waste of airspace for the amount of passengers they carry. Replace them with a reduced number of mainline aircraft. Your city can't handle mainline aircraft? Well, too bad, guess you don't get JFK service then. JFK is too much of a premium to give everyone flights everywhere at everytime.

 checkmark  That is EXACTLY what I meant in my post (#12) above! 100 seats should be the absolute minimum sized passenger aircraft allowed into NYC-JFK or EWR & LGA as well. Somebody good with Adobe Photoshop get a good rendition of a CRJ and a turbo-prop and draw a red circle with a slash going through it!!!!!



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
As for JFK's reduction in flights the airlines are going to need to get to work figuring out how they will handle it. Moving planes around to get larger planes into JFK is obviously one way, as is using the old "milk run" approach for smaller cities.

The solution is real easy. It's not even a new idea; the free-for-all thing was a "new idea" that worked extremely badly.

The right way is to make JFK a "Lexus Lane." Charge each jet for the right to take off. If there are too many takers, increase the price.

I guarantee international players will easily pay the new fee. Or, potentially, international flights could be exempted. Either way, they will all stay.

This is simply a way to kick a few stupid RJs out of JFK to avoid not only causing international delays, but cascading domestic delays across the USA. This problem is way to big to act righteous about a few RJs.

Quoting Pizzaandplanes (Reply 9):

Exactly, they should use the extra atc fees revenue to modernize the current infrastructure. This would allow more safe aircraft movements in the future.

Modernize how? JFK is pretty big. I think JFK has plenty of capacity. Not infinite, but plenty. To start saying we should spend billions (or tens of billions) for a few RJ flights to Des Moines or whatever, get real. The level of importance of these marginal RJ flights is very low. The "right" to zero-cost access to JFK is extremely controversial and in my view, dubious. If airlines want more flights to JFK, let them handle the costs directly and set up a bank account for it. Otherwise, deal with what you've got.


25 Post contains images Teme82 : Ok. Thanks Perhaps it's time to start it
26 Post contains links and images Vega9000 : This is it: View Large View MediumPhoto © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters Madeira Island, Portugal. Considered one of the finest engeneering w
27 Post contains images SLCUT2777 : I would say that LGA is a stronger candidate for this sort of runway work. LGA has even more pressure on it since so many wish to use it for its conv
28 Mir : A new 13/31 runway built on fill just into the bay and a new 4/22 built east of the current 4R/22L would solve a lot of the problems. they wouldn't e
29 D328 : What about US Airways new Embraer 190's, 99 seats? What if they want to send that? That is a mainline aircraft.
30 Post contains images SLCUT2777 : They can VERY easily find a way to add one more seat to these, and if their union pilots are so brainless as to throw a , we'll just let them go on b
31 Flighty : Why require a certain number of seats? If an airline wants to pay to send an RJ 50 seater instead of a 120 seater, let them. But the fee will be the
32 Post contains images Brilondon : I don't see this as the answer. I see it as causing more congestion as when the A380 arrives you have to allow for the aircraft to land and the wake
33 Atmx2000 : AA should just buy B6. Expansion of capacity in the NYC market isn't realisitic, it will just cause a blood bath. AA has a rather weak domestic route
34 Brilondon : This may have not been brought in this thread but they cannot expand into the bay as it is a Bird sanctuary and cannot be built into without a lot of
35 PGNCS : I think you are on the money. When given the choice to cut international or RJ flights, the RJs will lose every (or nearly every) time. If you replac
36 McMax : What I predict will happen is the majors (i.e., AA, UA and DL) will be forced to "voluntarily" reduce their schedules under threat. Then, without a co
37 Lrdc9 : How in the heck would that work. Two totally diff products, a/c, etc etc etc....
38 Post contains images SLCUT2777 : Do you really want to turn the Port authority of New York into the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), which gets all sorts of nasty posts on
39 Sh0rtybr0wn : This isnt about 1 airline gaining preference over another, its about the physical limit of planes that can actually take-off and land during peak tim
40 McMax : Similar problem was happening at O'Hare in 2004 when UA and AA were ordered to cut their flights. A few months later, when congestion problems were s
41 Ikramerica : Did I miss the change? I know Airbus was fighting for that to be true, but I was still under the impression that the A380 requires greater separation
42 Flyf15 : It shouldnt be an idea of limiting the number of flights. It should be a limit on the smallest size aircraft allowed. Say your airport can handle 10 f
43 McMax : Actually, I would argue that under a market economy, when supply is scarce, prices go up. Unfortunately, that would mean many small- to medium-sized
44 Charles79 : One aspect no one has mentioned yet is that a lot of the RJs are used on routes that are so short that train service could replace the aircraft. I kno
45 Flyf15 : This is a little different in the way that the FAA is allowing a completely artificial situation where it is, in effect, "selling" more "product" tha
46 Mir : NYC has more than enough O/D to fill up several A380s to places like LHR, CDG, FRA, etc. We don't need no stinkin' RJs to help with that. -Mir
47 Boeing7E7 : How is less than 1% of JFK's flights each day going to matter? Do tell.
48 McMax : And, with LGA slot-controlled (i.e., limited access) and Newark congested as well, there would be a very likely possibility many of these small/mediu
49 Flyf15 : Its not an airspace issue.... theres more than enough airspace out there for everyone. Its simply a matter of concrete. The New York area has a serio
50 Riddle274 : Could this push someone to start using ISP?
51 McMax : Wait a minute--I thought runway capacity at JFK was not being used fully. I thought the whole issue was airspace congestion which caused capacity to
52 Post contains images FlyDreamliner : I would agree. The number of RJ's into NYC is just stupid. Cities too small to support a daily mainline aircraft into JFK is dumb. This whole "let's
53 Sh0rtybr0wn : They need to drop a serious amount of money and fix this problem once and for all..... personally, I feel they should build a mega-airport out in the
54 PITrules : You are correct, the current layout is not the problem, it is an airspace issue. No use in putting in more runways until the current ones are used to
55 Post contains images Vega9000 : And call it: Bill Clinton International ( BCI )
56 9V-SPJ : Airspace issues are a major problem with the NYC airports. For my research, we tried to propose new CDA routes into PHL and EWR and immediately, we ra
57 Flighty : And there are quite a few 757 flights at JFK too.... (which are treated as heavies, right?)
58 Pizzaandplanes : Please don't take words out of my mouth that I never said. I was never referred to airlines wanting more flights, I simply stated the idea of moderni
59 LipeGIG : Just send all commuters using RJs to other Hub airports and then using larger jets like 757's, transport them to JFK or LGA, if they really need to us
60 Post contains images Flymad : From someone sitting across the Atlantic Ocean, the general impression I get from reading through the thread is that the main problem seems to be one
61 Post contains images R2rho : Oh no! Someone pronounced the forbidden word: rail! (gasp). I was gonna say the same thing but then everyone would just take me for another crazy Eur
62 FreequentFlier : I don't think people on this side of the pond are as adverse to rail as you may have been led to believe. However, we do have rail linking those citi
63 787EWR : I agree that regional jets and turboprops slow things down, but New York is New York(Financial, business and entertainment capital). People from smal
64 Panamair : I believe the whole RJ frequency as a major cause has been blown out of proportion, and frankly replacing them with mainline aircraft is not going to
65 Post contains images McMax : Without the domestic feed into JFK, there is no need for all those international flights. Limiting capacity (i.e., effectively reducing service to sm
66 747fan : I've noticed on passur that this arrangement is in operation sometimes. I'm guessing it can only happen if the winds are right, which would probably
67 SkyyMaster : Not yet at least. If the airlines cannot agree on revising their schedules, the FAA may very well impose slot restrictions on JFK. With all the annou
68 RJpieces : From what I have observed, it only happens when weather conditions are good though I might be wrong. If it is raining or windy or whatever, they are
69 SkyyMaster : Not yet at least. If the airlines cannot agree on revising their schedules, the FAA may very well impose slot restrictions on JFK. With all the annou
70 Flighty : I agree completely. It is the RJs that need to be cut. And, this whole thing has little or nothing to do with ATC. It's runway size, and whether we n
71 McMax : Absolutely. Forcing cutbacks at JFK merely results in a short-term shift of capacity to LGA and EWR, which causes ground congestion at those airports
72 Boeing7E7 : If people want to really cut flights at congested airports rather than lay new runways, the solution is rather simple. Blanket coverage of seat averag
73 Flighty : JFK's role as a transit hub is secondary to its role as a NYC gateway. Just as NRT's role as a transit hub should be sacrificed of Tokyo needs its ca
74 McMax : When you say "uniform capacity airlines," are you referring to airlines that only operate one type? Is this really a problem right now, with one airl
75 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Yes. Those are already determined by formula: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...ssenger_allcargo_stats/categories/
76 STT757 : The problem with that is that EWR and LGA's growth has been basically flat for years, JFK is where airlines are stumbling over themselves to add more
77 Boeing7E7 : LGA is already having it's own capacity plan implemented.
78 Panamair : Which is why JFK has traditionally been a money loser for US airlines. For years, Pan Am and TWA used it with sporadic international and domestic fli
79 LGAtoIND : IMHO, it has to be the FAA and NOT the airlines that get any meaningful changes made. NYC is such an important market for these carriers, and they wil
80 HPAEAA : It would be interesting to see if there is a way to make air to rail connections more efficent... might help the situation a little...
81 STT757 : CO already codeshares with Amtrak between the Newark Airport Rail Link Station and Wilmington DE, Philadelphia 30th Street station, Stamford CT, and
82 Post contains images R2rho : While not being the ultimate solution in the very long term (only more runway capacity is, and that's not easy), ATC modernization can bring some quic
83 FlyASAGuy2005 : What flights do you know of that runs every 40 minutes? I would assume that you are tying to maek a point but where exactly are they going to get the
84 FlyPNS1 : While what you say is true, the bottomline is that JFK doesn't have the infrastructure (runways) to handle a major connecting hub operation for three
85 SPREE34 : Concrete! There has top be enough concrete, (there isn't right now) or all of the ATC/Airspace Voo Doo in the Universe won't work. Ah, OK. So we are
86 SkyyMaster : Odd how history seems to recycle itself. For so long, JFK was THE gateway for trans-Atlantic flights. ETOPS came along and suddenly JFK wasn't so imp
87 WorldTraveler : actually, the statistics show that narrowbody and RJs are growing at JFK at just about the same rate. LGA and EWR are seeing RJ growth rates far ahea
88 FlyPNS1 : But JFK is no DCA. The comparable airport to DCA is LGA. Not to mention that practically every city east of the Mississippi that has service to JFK,
89 9V-SPJ : Yes, the 757 is treated as a heavy when it is taking off. Thanks! It is not possible to say that the only contributor to the problem are the RJs or t
90 Indy : Long term solution is responsible scheduling by the airlines. Instead of going 3x daily with an rj perhaps go with 1 rj and 1 mainline. When it comes
91 PITrules : And the one holding short of the runway, or in position and hold on the runway, is waiting his turn for a takeoff clearance because of restrictions o
92 Mir : Displaced thresholds count, so three of JFK's runways intersect. You'll find that they use a three-runway configuration as much as possible, either l
93 PITrules : In good weather conditions and if they used LAHSO, there is no reason, other than airspace, why 4 runways can't be used. For example, arrive 4L/short
94 Brilondon : And I suppose you would want less frequency and there for use of bigger planes would then be justified and accomplish what the goal was to make JFK l
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...
US To Reduce PIT Flights By 100 posted Mon Mar 22 2004 21:56:59 by Atcboy73
Swiss To Reduce Regional Flights By 10 Acfts... posted Fri Feb 7 2003 00:21:06 by Swissgabe
EVA Airways Reduce Flights By 12% posted Sun Sep 30 2001 01:17:00 by Jiml1126
Frontier Airlines To Reduce Operations By 20%. posted Wed Sep 19 2001 00:41:13 by BA
American To Reduce Capacity By 20%! posted Fri Sep 14 2001 02:15:13 by Ahlfors
Skybus Website May Be Showing New Flights posted Wed Sep 19 2007 03:30:33 by Johnyv
Emirates HAM-JFK Flights - How Are They Doing? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 17:33:04 by PA101
Track CI Flights By Tail Number posted Mon Apr 2 2007 03:09:24 by Paomien
BA Citiflyer Expands London City Flights By 70%! posted Wed Mar 14 2007 14:46:58 by Concorde001
Fly.faa.gov, EGF And BTA Flights Only? posted Wed Feb 14 2007 18:33:07 by UN_B732