Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA May Block New BA Euro Flights To JFK  
User currently offlineNycfly75 From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 759 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11797 times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ctors/transport/article2774481.ece

Fair Use:

"Plans by British Airways to launch a new airline between Europe and New York have been thrown into disarray after American aviation authorities threatened to veto any increase of air traffic into the chronically congested John F. Kennedy airport.

The Times has learnt that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is about to start talks with foreign airlines, including BA, to reduce congestion at JFK, the main New York airport. It is thought that the feasibility of launching the new airline will be a key issue under discussion at the BA board meeting tomorrow, when company executives gather to discuss the group’s interim results published on Friday."

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11772 times:

If this turns out to be true Air France has beaten BA in this round.

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11704 times:

This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...

User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 1):
If this turns out to be true Air France has beaten BA in this round.

Wouldn't allowing the AF flights and not allowing the BA flights be inappropriate? I would think that the FAA would have to allow both and then impose any necessary restrictions.

Also wouldnt it be easier for BA/AA to "attack" AF in CDG than it would be for AF to do the same at LHR?



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11675 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...

... and the others could remain at LGW, non?


User currently offlineNycfly75 From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 759 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11676 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...

Open Skies is not adding to the number of flights/slots into LHR, it is just allowing more airlines to use LHR. Those new airlines still have to obtain existing slots into LHR. JFK is having major capacity issues so Im sure BA is not the only airline thats going to feel the heat. Any Int'l carrier into JFK with more than 2-3 daily flights (BA,AF, LH...) is going to be feeling pressure to make some schedule adjustments, especially if all those flights are within the rush hour period. EWR is having similar capacity issues which are made worse by the lack of runways and CO's dominance. I think the 16:00-19:59 period should be slotted to 90 departures/hour with the 18:00-19:59 period closed to all departures except International and TRANSCON.

[Edited 2007-10-30 22:27:09]

User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11507 times:

Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 1):
If this turns out to be true Air France has beaten BA in this round.

IIRC 'slots' at JFK for S08 have yet to be assigned to any carrier. There are no assurances that AF (or any other airline) will receive any additional permissions, let alone the ones they operated last year. USG, and in particular, the DOJ does not like the idea of historical preference (aka Grandfather rights).


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11468 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):
This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...

The UK gov't is not allowing any more flights into LHR. It's only removing an unfair rule that restricts CO, DL, NW, US and any other non AA/UA USA airline from flying there, but allows every other airline in the world, and even allows for some 5th freedom airlines to fly LHR-USA.

JFK is talking about limiting operations during peak hours, a move that would effect EVERYONE, and prevent EVERYONE from expanding. BA has plans to add flights, during rush hour, to JFK.

Now BA might say it's not their fault that DL and AA and B6 have filled up the schedule, but there is nothing stopping BA from adding UK flights today, or from adding them over the last five years, or 10, to establish "slots" there.

Further, the limitations on JFK won't mean BA can't operate EU-USA flights to all the other airports and destinations in the USA. It's not the FAA's problem that BA decided to start this airline with 757s, which can't make it past New York. BA could use 767s and fly as much as they want to ORD and IAD and LAX and SFO and MIA from all over Europe should they choose.

Quoting Nycfly75 (Reply 5):
JFK is having major capacity issues so Im sure BA is not the only airline thats going to feel the heat.

Everyone will. DL and AA and B6 are going to have to make tough decisions as well.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11443 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
The UK gov't is not allowing any more flights into LHR.

When pointing that out, don't forget to mention that the treaty restricting LHR access wasn't a unilateral one...  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Now BA might say it's not their fault that DL and AA and B6 have filled up the schedule

... and they'd be right. If US carriers fill up an airport with more departures than the airport can handle alltogether, then it's hardly BA's fault, nor any other international carrier's fault. Strangely enough, the US (not sure who exactly it was, it was a couple of months ago when the open skies treaty was announced) think that they're entitled to receive slots at LHR: if they're entitled to slots at LHR, then BA is most certainly entitled to slots at JFK (or another slot-restricted airport that they'd like to fly to).

What's good for the goose...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Further, the limitations on JFK won't mean BA can't operate EU-USA flights to all the other airports and destinations in the USA.

That's irrelevant. The limitations on LHR didn't mean that CO, NW, DL etc. couldn't operate any other USA-EU flights, still that was deemed an unfair disadvantage.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
It's not the FAA's problem that BA decided to start this airline with 757s, which can't make it past New York.

It most certainly is their problem - as they're the ones that allowed the situation at JFK to deteriorate to the point where it is now. They're the ones, together with US carriers, that created the mess - they should clean it up again.

Same goes for BA, BAA and whoever else is involved at LHR.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11261 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
When pointing that out, don't forget to mention that the treaty restricting LHR access wasn't a unilateral one...

It was as good as unilateral. The UK had the upper hand, and there wasn't much the USA could do. It was a bilateral treaty that was meant to protect BA as it was emerging from government ownership and facing competition from around the world. And it was also meant to try to keep PA and TW afloat, which didn't work out so well. But what made sense (or didn't) 20 and 30 years ago doesn't make sense in 2008. BA isn't in danger anymore.

The problem with any such legislation is that even as the entity that needed help no longer needs help, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the help coming. It's a universal problem around the globe.

To quote Grandpa Simpson when he was asked where he got the money he gave bart as a birthday gift:

"From the Government. I don't need it, lord knows I didn't earn it, but I'll fight 'em tooth and nail if they try to take it from me."

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
That's irrelevant. The limitations on LHR didn't mean that CO, NW, DL etc. couldn't operate any other USA-EU flights, still that was deemed an unfair disadvantage.

BA is not restricted from flying to ANY us city or airport, including JFK. It's only going to be subjected to the same "slots" that any other carrier is at JFK. BA planned to expand at JFK next year. This move is NOT to prevent BA from doing so. Nothing prevented them from adding as many flights as they wanted to THIS year. Or last year. Or the year before. From LHR or to fly to JFK from anywhere else in England, for that matter.

But next year, new rules may be put in place for ALL carriers. No carrier will gain an unfair advantage. And the argument that a domestic carrier shouldn't have more slots holds no weight considering the number of slots BA holds at LHR, the number of flights LH has at FRA or AF has at CDG. And there is nothing stopping BA from flying CDG-JFK next year, either. Or FRA. But when all airlines need to limit their number of flights, BA will have to decide which routes are most important and what equipment works best, just like AA, DL, AF, etc. will have to do. All the airlines are going to be bitching about this, and I think DL especially is going to be in for a rude awakening.

BA can time some of their London flights differently. So could AA, DL, VS. Part of the reason "rush hour" exists is because airlines have traditionally defined departure and arrival times for TATL during that period and customers "expect" those times now, but there is wiggle room to shift some of these flights around. If all the seats are full at 7:01pm, and no other options exist because no other carrier has seats either, will customers just decide that they don't have business in London after all? No, they'll fly on the 8:30pm and adjust their schedule accordingly.

Currently BA flies 4 744s between JFK and LHR in a 1.5 hour span during "rush hour" but if everyone was limited before 8pm, and BA had to trim it to 2 flights (6:30pm and 7:15pm) and then 3 flights between 8pm and 9pm instead, and other airlines had the same limitations, it wouldn't really impact them much, other than a longer turn time for a couple aircraft by about 1 hour. (Of course, there's the problem of LHR having time specific slots on the other end, but I don't think JFK's rules, if adopted, will be as draconian. And BA, which holds the most LHR slots by far, is in a much better position to adjust slots on the LHR end than AA, DL, etc.) And BA could also run their CDG and FRA flights after 8pm, or one before and one after if they decided to use their slots that way. Since the 757s are supposed to be "JFK based" anyway, I'm not sure why this is such a problem.

In contrast, LHR was closed to CO, DL, etc. They couldn't just fly 1 flight or whatever to LHR only if they landed at 11AM and left at 1PM on alternate Tuesdays. Even if LHR had free time because it was inconvenient, CO, DL, etc. couldn't use it. BA, VS, AA, and UA could fly as much as they wanted to the selected USA cities from LHR (as long as both countries approved the capacity). It was clearly an unfair advantage held by AA, UA, BA and VS over CO, DL, NW, BMI and US. Open Skies only removes that restriction, which includes allowing BA to fly LHR to any US city with as much capacity as they wish, as well as LGW to cities that were closed before entirely to London flights (like SLC, HNL, Portland, Nashville, etc.)

But I agree, CO's claim that they were somehow "owed" LHR slots was a lame assertion given the history of the treaty. If anything, the US government should have stepped in while UA was slowly selling off slots to foreign airlines, and asserted that UA, as "custodian" of LHR access, had a duty to maintain a set number of LHR slots in the national interest of the USA or lose their status as one of two anointed carriers under B2 to Continental, whom had been appointed a third carrier already (which allowed them to codeshare with VS). Since the US government failed to protect that access as UA sold off slots, it was never incumbent on the UK government to make up for our mistake. But hey, it couldn't hurt for CO to try to make that case? Never hurts to ask...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11637 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11163 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Everyone will. DL and AA and B6 are going to have to make tough decisions as well.

Which is incredible, seeing as Delta and JetBlue are the ones chiefly responsible for the delays. Those two airlines alone account for probably 75% of the additional flying at JFK over the last year. Not that there is anything wrong with adding capacity, of course: if it was up to me, this whole thing would be a moot point and no airline - Delta, JetBlue, AA, BA, or anyone else - would have to make a choice between serving the public and serving the slavemaster that is the federal government and its bureaucracy. But, alas, that's where we are, unfortunately.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11144 times:

The basic reason that this problem exists in the first place is all the small airplanes flying around that everyone lauds as the fantastic "point-to-point fragmentation." The USA needs to halt this and go for bigger airplanes. The alternative is a planes full of passengers sitting five hours on the tarmac while waiting for clearance to take off.

Passengers should vote with their feet and refuse to fly 757s across the Atlantic. If they would do that, the congestion would be relieved very quickly.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Currently BA flies 4 744s between JFK and LHR in a 1.5 hour span during "rush hour" but if everyone was limited before 8pm, and BA had to trim it to 2 flights (6:30pm and 7:15pm) and then 3 flights between 8pm and 9pm instead

BA may soon be forced to take up some of those A380 options.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11113 times:

I think BA have a strong position here, solely due to the fact that they have their own terminal at JFK, hald of which is taken up by UA. Now if they were to kick out UA where would they go........

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11107 times:

Surely the FAA should have seen this problem coming years ago and started to do something about it then?!?! I am sure that BA could use EWR if it couldn't get project Lauren into JFK.

Are there any other 757 Long range suitable airports in the New York area?


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10892 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
this problem exists in the first place is all the small airplanes flying around that everyone lauds as the fantastic "point-to-point fragmentation."

Would pre-deregulation "JFK is main USA international gateway, with tons of domestic connections" be better? For each 330/777 not even appearing in JFK we would have 747/380 plus 737/320/757 flying in and out JFK. Point-to-point allows air traffic to bypass hubs - JFK would be a sheer disaster if "fantastic point-to-point fragmentation" was not there.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10846 times:

FAA should clamp down on their domestic RJ abuse which is the main cause of congestion not on international flights. BA and UK will clearly see that as violation of Open Skies and might retaliate.

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10812 times:

BA will now need some extra A380s for JFK!

User currently offlineADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 951 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10579 times:

Quoting Nycfly75 (Reply 5):
EWR is having similar capacity issues which are made worse by the lack of runways and CO's dominance. I think the 16:00-19:59 period should be slotted to 90 departures/hour with the 18:00-19:59 period closed to all departures except International and TRANSCON.

EWR would love 90 depts/hour. They have a hard time doing 45/hr.

IIRC JFK was slot controlled during the evening rush 3p-9p for years and only gave that up a year or two ago so B6 could expand. So why is it such a big deal to go back? As long as the reductions are equitable amongst all the carriers.


User currently offlineNycfly75 From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 759 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10326 times:

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 19):
EWR would love 90 depts/hour. They have a hard time doing 45/hr.

I meant 90/hour (16:00-19:59) and the 18:00-19:59 period closed to all departures except International and TRANSCON for JFK.

[Edited 2007-10-31 06:57:10]

[Edited 2007-10-31 06:58:23]

User currently offlineModernArt From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9394 times:

Quoting Nycfly75 (Reply 5):
I think the 16:00-19:59 period should be slotted to 90 departures/hour with the 18:00-19:59 period closed to all departures except International and TRANSCON.

What's special about transcons? Maybe restricted to aircraft seating at least 100 pax, but the west coast is not special when it comes to the overall picture at JFK


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9193 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 4):
.. and the others could remain at LGW, non?

I don't believe that's a valid comparison... EWR & JFK are equidistant from downtown Manhattan. LGW & LHR are not equidistant from Central London, non?



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

Quoting RIX (Reply 14):
Point-to-point allows air traffic to bypass hubs - JFK would be a sheer disaster if "fantastic point-to-point fragmentation" was not there.

I am under the impression that JFK is on the verge of being a major disaster with point-to-point fragmentation yet...

It may be true that customers want freedom of choice among as much frequencies as possible, but this will inevitably lead to airports saturation. We are there. So, now the customers have a different choice: shuttle-like services to a huge number of cities with a huge number of small jets following each other for a loooong moment before take-off, or less flights with bigger planes and less congestion.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17509 posts, RR: 45
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9034 times:

Oh the irony after all US carriers got access to LHR but no slots Silly


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineBaexecutive From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8099 times:

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 20):
I don't believe that's a valid comparison... EWR & JFK are equidistant from downtown Manhattan. LGW & LHR are not equidistant from Central London, non?

There isn't much in it to be honest,

Distance from London, LHR - 15 Miles*, LGW - 24 Miles*

Distance from Manhattan, JFK - 12 Miles*, EWR - 15 Miles*

(*source Wikipedia)

J


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7711 times:

Quoting Baexecutive (Reply 23):
Distance from Manhattan, JFK - 12 Miles*, EWR - 15 Miles*

Irrelevant.... from various points in Manhattan, the airports are varying but close distances but accessibility is even (EWR can be much easier to get to) More importantly, from a business perspective, they're equidistant from Midtown and Downtown... in fact, I can see EWR from my office window Downtown... can't see JFK. And besides convenience and accessibility factors, although JFK is bigger and has more international airlines, there's no meaningful difference in terms of customs/passport control or "international status" between the two... EWR has several top-tier international carriers that operate very successfully there, including AF/KL, LH, LY, SAS, LX, BA, SQ, etc.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
25 Continental180 : We Have to relize something here though EWR is really not a solution or option for that matter. It is overpowered by continental airlines, and has no
26 Cubsrule : I suspect if this happened the FAA would amend the ORD capacity control order to make foreign flag carriers subject to the same limitations as everyo
27 Post contains images Ncelhr : This whole talk of "congestion", "limited slots", "veto any increase of air traffic" and the like, smells of A380. Might BA "sacrifice" frequency with
28 Nycfly75 : Agreed, moving flights to EWR is not the answer at all. I think for starters all charter/non-scheduled passenger traffic (North American, ATA, etc.)
29 ChrisNH : My thoughts exactly. For all the decades of whining and wailing by U.S. airlines to gain access to Heathrow, here we are playing a frigging GAME even
30 STT757 : Those numbers are totally wrong, EWR is closer to every single point in Manhattan vs JFK. Check out Google Earth's Measurement feature if you don't b
31 Goldorak : I couldn't agree more. It's incredible and ridiculous for the very busy NYC-PAR route that during the last weeks we had announcements for 5 or 6 new
32 Avek00 : Sounds to me like BA is setting up the perfect pretext to getting the Open Skies deal scrapped...smart strategy.
33 Flyingcat : To be fair lets inject a little sanity into this debate. 1. LHR is slot limited at all times of the day. Open skies is not changing the number of slot
34 Avek00 : Big distinction here - CO/NW/DL are new operators into Heathrow whilst BA is an existing operator into JFK. It can be argued with a straight face tha
35 Sllevin : This doesn't surprise me at all. I always held that Open Skies was nothing but a windfall for the European airlines, and forced US airlines that didn'
36 Continental180 : Yupp.....That is why you are seeing a decrease in airlines wanting to add more routes in newark because they dont have a chance due to Continental Ai
37 Rivet42 : Well spotted, this is the real story behind the Great Slot Debate. Perhaps CO should direct any ire that they might be feeling towards UA for squande
38 Coa747 : I find it very amusing that our European friends are crying foul over JFK and how the US domestic carriers are hording slots with RJ's and the like. B
39 Flighty : The FAA can't just deny foreign access to JFK... that's preposterous. There needs to be a fair system to allocate JFK to the market. The only way to d
40 AirframeAS : I didn't read the entire thread but isnt LHR already heavily slot restricted anyway? If so, then the point of bringing that up is moot. Bad bargainin
41 Schipholjfk : The entire argument is so archaic. How about FAA upgrade our 1950s air traffic system and really allow competition exist at all airports instead of li
42 Avek00 : Again, the lack of LHR access for non-B2 carriers and the possible restrictions on JFK are two very different matters.
43 AirframeAS : They tried this (Flight path changing) here at PHX. And I don't think it has been working for anyone involved.
44 Njgtr82 : What do you call Qatar, Jet Airways, Silverjet, L'Avion and the recent announcements by China Southern, Hainan, and EOS??
45 RIX : - frequencies have nothing to do with what I was saying. Replying to this: I said that because of point-to-point JFK is much less loaded than it woul
46 Rivet42 : What a particularly stupid thing to say. The Bermuda II agreement (and Bermuda I before it) protects the interests of US and UK airlines alike, deter
47 Cubsrule : They're discriminating against carriers based on whether they're foreign or domestic at ORD... why not at JFK?
48 Flighty : Is this normal, or is this something only the USA does? Thing is, ORD and JFK are clogged by RJs *not* international carriers. Running 5-6 flights pe
49 Continental180 : There Not, its just JFK has no more room and would most likely make more room for an US airline over a british. also, there is so many flights alread
50 VV701 : With respect it is not "quite coincidental that BA's home airport just happens to be one of the most important . . . aviation hubs in the world". As
51 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Actually, JFK is not at capacity. 757's are flown across the pond for a reason. If they could fill their T7's and 763's they would. RJ's is not the r
52 CuriousFlyer : I see that JFK and EWR will increasingly have to simplify the way they work. They should not be connection hubs, airlines should focus on O&D there. I
53 FlyASAGuy2005 : All I here on a.net day in and day out is O&D. O&D is not everything. BTW, I only see EWR as the REAL connection hub. Yes, Delta/AA's ops is pretty s
54 Nycfly75 : They should focus on stopping the flood of RJs into JFK, which was designed as an International Gateway not a fortress hub with 100s of RJ clogging t
55 FlyASAGuy2005 : (I know people will label me as an RJ lover) My friend, you should come to JFK more often. I can guarantee you that there are not as much RJ "traffic
56 Post contains images Nycfly75 : I am there all the time my friend, I live in Howard Beach right next door
57 Scbriml : Under the terms of Bermuda II they were restricted to the number of US cities they could serve from LHR. This is the only reason some of BA's US flig
58 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Like they had much of a choice.
59 Par13del : Statistics are given, and too often I take them at face value until I think about them, unfortunately, we can use them to whichever advantage, so sinc
60 Post contains links FlySSC : Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 3): Wouldn't allowing the AF flights and not allowing the BA flights be inappropriate? BA applied for CDG-JFK while AF appl
61 Mir : Passengers have voted with their feet, and they have said that they don't mind flying 757s across the Atlantic, even if it increases congestion. Not
62 Continental180 : ahh sorry about that, meant to say stewart, swf
63 Scbriml : Obviously they did have a choice. The US could simply have refused to allow any British carrier access to US airports. This would have hurt British a
64 Post contains images VV701 : After BA with around 42 per cent comes BD with around 13 per cent and then LH with around 4 per cent. Bermuda 2 actually specifically identifies the
65 FlyASAGuy2005 : That wuldn't have been a wise choice i'm affraid.
66 Yyz717 : If the FAA is truly concerned about reducing congestion at JFK, all it needs to do raise landing fees for commuter aircraft. A typical CRJ flight occu
67 Post contains images Aircellist : I am under the impression that JFK is on the verge of being a major disaster with point-to-point fragmentation yet...It may be true that customers wa
68 Yyz717 : Exactly. That will solve congestion at JFK, EWR, LGA and many more airports.
69 Foxy : Presume if this came to pass and BA were restricted in the use of new slots for Project Lauren we would see the BA MAN-JFK service disappear pretty qu
70 Post contains images Gigneil : Not to put too fine a point on it, hon, but aren't they two different directions? NS
71 Cubsrule : ORD is a beast unlike any other carrier because it doesn't really have slots. It has the FAA twisting arms. My point was simply that if the FAA can d
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...
Aerolineas Argentinas: No More Flights To JFK? posted Fri Aug 24 2007 03:47:21 by Argentina
Tucson Flights To JFK And EWR posted Sun Jul 22 2007 05:00:33 by Nycaross
BA YVR Flights To LHR T1? posted Sat Mar 24 2007 20:32:57 by ANother
New BA Club Seat To Be Revealed Nov 13th posted Fri Oct 13 2006 18:55:39 by TCXDegsy
Egyptair To Launch 747 Freighter Flights To JFK posted Fri Apr 14 2006 19:23:43 by Horus
Royal Air Maroc Increases Flights To JFK And YUL posted Fri Feb 10 2006 21:06:05 by Bambicruz
BA 747 Returns To JFK After Engine Sparks posted Sun Jan 1 2006 01:50:34 by AerospaceFan
BA Doubling Flights To India- How's It Possible posted Fri Oct 7 2005 21:37:42 by Englandair
BA 777 Flights To US: Which Have First Class? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 00:49:44 by AT
Eurofly: New Service From Italy To JFK posted Tue Mar 8 2005 03:17:45 by PHX Flyer