Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NYC Area Airport Slots Up For Auction.  
User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4105 times:

I guess slotting off the nyc airports just is not as easy as it sounds.


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080516/airlines_delays.html?.v=1

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Now I may not be a fan of the slower-than-glacial FAA (Farting Around Always), but if the government doesn't have the authority to slot control airports that are DESPERATELY and almost comically overcrowded, then the government can't have any power AT ALL.

And while I might not agree with some aspects of the plan, such as forcing some airlines to auction off some of their slots, setting a maximum number of take-offs and landings per hour and restricting it to ONLY those makes sense.

I'm sorry that airlines will no longer be allowed to schedule 400 departures in a 30 minutes period "because the market demands it" (PLEASE note the sarcasm!!), but that's not even realistic under the most ideal of conditions, much less the atrocity that can be the weather. Priority, however, MUST be given to the airline(s) that have invested the most in the facilities, and not just auctioned off "so everyone can have a chance" as some newcomers are crying.

If the airlines feel its unfair, perhaps they can deal with the NIMBY's who delight in keeping NYC's airports hemmed in and horrifically antiquated.

What this country needs is an independent commission, similiar to the Federal Reserve, that operates without Congressional or Presidential interference, that is charged with keeping our transportation needs met. It will be unpleasant for some - especially congressmen who thrive on pandering to NIMBY's - but at least the bickering over how to make it "painless to absolutely everyone" that inevitably ends in a Titanic-like disaster will end.

Wishful thinking.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4049 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
Now I may not be a fan of the slower-than-glacial FAA (Farting Around Always), but if the government doesn't have the authority to slot control airports that are DESPERATELY and almost comically overcrowded, then the government can't have any power AT ALL.

Well, yeah, the federal government is NOT granted unlimited powers. And it isn't an all or nothing proposition as you falsely claim. It's a constitutional thing. State rights and all.

A city/state should have the right to decide how to use it's resources. If the feds don't agree, they can cut federal funding, but shouldn't be able to just jump in and regulate.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4035 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):

Well, yeah, the federal government is NOT granted unlimited powers. And it isn't an all or nothing proposition as you falsely claim. It's a constitutional thing. State rights and all.

A city/state should have the right to decide how to use it's resources. If the feds don't agree, they can cut federal funding, but shouldn't be able to just jump in and regulate.

The federal government is allowed to regulate the "instrumentalities" of inter-state commerce, and that includes airports and airplanes. They have pretty much all the power they want with airports.



a.
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

The courts have ruled that the federal government has final authority on air travel. I would imagine that in being responsible for all 50 states air travel - and the consequences that happen if one area isn't working - have to fall under federal jurisdiction. Otherwise, it's a mish-mash of 50 states trying to coordinate air travel.

I wouldn't ever lobby for unlimited powers, but someone has to be in charge of the system. If NYC area airports aren't going to expand or grow - and obviously they're not - airlines cannot pretend that they are. Someone has to be the referee and say, "this is your limit unless you expand".

If NYC voters decide that their facilities shall remain as-is, then that's their decision. I would not advocate that any part of the federal government say, "just tear down New Jersey and make the whole state an airport/train station/freeway". The cities and their metro area can live with the consequences. However, if the resulting mismanagement of scheduling and airspace disrupts the rest of the country, then something has to be done.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8496 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is a peak late afternoon or early evening JFK slot worth ? How does the price compare to a peak time LHR slot.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3976 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
What this country needs is an independent commission, similiar to the Federal Reserve, that operates without Congressional or Presidential interference, that is charged with keeping our transportation needs met. It will be unpleasant for some - especially congressmen who thrive on pandering to NIMBY's - but at least the bickering over how to make it "painless to absolutely everyone" that inevitably ends in a Titanic-like disaster will end.

Oh, that would be wonderful, but ultimately, the problem with such an idea is the funding. The Federal Reserve doesn't need much funding and its funding needs are rather constant because there are very few variables. For example, the Federal Reserve, so far as I know, doesn't need additional funding to deal with a given crisis. A Federal Transportation Reserve needs more money if they decide to build a project and their funding would have to be congressionally controlled.

I wish there was a way around it.

The NIMBYS are one of the biggest barriers to progress in this country. In Europe they tell them to shut the hell up and deal with a high-speed train track passing along the border of their farm. There's criticism and controversy, but what is needed often gets done, particularly with High-Speed Rail, which is a major part of the solution to our transportation problem.

I just feel like nothing useful gets done anymore in this country.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3958 times:



Quote:
Oh, that would be wonderful, but ultimately, the problem with such an idea is the funding.

Agreed. We'd have to raise airfares $.02 per segment, which would (a) have the consumer rise up in arms over the "biggest increase in history" (note the sarcasm), and (b) never go into transportation, but into a slush-fund for politicians to gorge themselves on.

Quote:
I just feel like nothing useful gets done anymore in this country.

Nothing does - unless, of course, you count the ability to hide the crumbling infrastructure from public view. Keep it out of sight and out of mind, and $$$ can go somewhere else.

Quote:
What is a peak late afternoon or early evening JFK slot worth?

I think New York should do what Chicago O'Hare has done - priority to international flights. Obviously Port Authority doesn't want to see all those Delta trans-Atlantic and trans-polar non-stops disappear, nor do they want to discourage any new international carrier from extending into New York. If, let's say, at the peak hour of departure, you give priority to international carriers, and then turn around and give American carriers credit of some sort for "de-peaking" their hub, the way Delta has done, then you might actually spread the flights out and keep that inevitable "evening rush" from happening.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3864 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 4):
The courts have ruled that the federal government has final authority on air travel.

But the local/state officials are in charge of the airports. The FAA gets the planes to the airport, but the airport handles gate use, terminal use, parking fees, etc. etc.

By the FAA or DOT or whoever else stepping in and auctioning off the use of airport facilities that are NOT theirs, they may be overstepping their powers. I expect a legal challenge here to further define exactly how far this power extends.

Now, the FAA could, in theory step in in a different way and say that they will only clear X flights per hour, and then let the airport figure out how to handle it (which is what they were initially talking about). That's a flight cap system, or a "federal budget of flights for the region." That makes more sense to me than having the feds dictate how to allocate those flights, especially when there is a plan to force airlines to give up slots to be REAUCTIONED (redistribution rather then straight limits on flights). That smacks of the feds getting into the "fairness" business, and promoting one private company over another private company…

A major reason that letting the feds allocate slots is bad in my book is that the feds have to look out for all interests around the country, the states only have to look out for their own. The state may not want the routes imposed on it by the federal government (think of some of the routes the CAB forced on airports, and how the flights were very empty). Some high ranking Senator from Wyoming or SD may decide he/she wants a non-stop to JFK and lobby the federal government to mandate that via the next step (or slip it into a budget bill, for example), at which point one state is using the federal government to tell another state what to do with it's resources for it's own gain (see DCA exceptions as examples of this artificial route creation via congressional intervention).

The more you federalize control of slot allocation, the less say any local person has in the system, the more democracy is damaged. It's easier to influence the vote in a state than it is nationally. An airport debacle can rise to importance on the local and even the state level when it comes to elections, but nobody is going to choose the next president based on airport politics. That means if the FAA/DOT, etc. are granted too much power, they will be able to act unilaterally (and we know how much trouble the USA gets into when administrations act unilaterally). This is the value of limiting federal power, because it keeps as much power in the hands of the people as possible.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6730 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3807 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
The state may not want the routes imposed on it by the federal government

No one is talking about imposing what routes to fly.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
The more you federalize control of slot allocation, the less say any local person has in the system, the more democracy is damaged. It's easier to influence the vote in a state than it is nationally.

But voters have little knowledge or understanding of how aviation works and historically voters have had little care (except when it comes to noise issues). I can guarantee you that your average resident of DC or NYC doesn't have a clue that DCA or LGA are slot restricted. Airport politics rarely reaches the radar screen on even the local level (again except for noise when consumers just want fewer planes flying over their house).

And while airports may be controlled at the state/local level, what goes on at one airport effects many others. Delays at JFK affect people flying out of airports across the country. Why should a resident of Virginia have their travel plans screwed up because the bozos in NYC can't get their act together? Particularly, when almost all airports receive federal grants on a regular basis. This means taxpayers across the country are paying for the screw-up in NYC and elsewhere.

Ideally, you are correct that the airport and the airlines should try to solve some of these problems. However, they have almost always been unwilling. The PANYNJ has repeatedly refused to do anything in regard to the NYC airports. The airlines repeatedly overschedule airports and also squat on slots to prevent others from getting them. At some point in time, the Feds are forced to come in and do something unilaterally.

Remember, the Feds tried to go hands off. They removed all slot restrictions at JFK and let the free market go. It took no time at all for the airlines to hang themselves. The FAA repeatedly warned the airlines/airports to change their behavior at JFK, but nothing happened. So now we get gov't intervention which is less than ideal, but the status quo can't continue.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Ikramerica,

What is your solution to the problem? And "leaving things as they are" is not a valid answer.

My solution is size limits.


User currently offlineAdxmatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 954 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

The NYC problems will not go away on their own. Having slots are not new. JFK had them for the longest time and when they were dropped to allow Jet Blue to increase service others did as well.

If one NYC airport is capped they all should be too including TEB,MMU,JFK,LGA,EWR.
Corp a/c already have a procedure to get a slot at LGA and can be expanded to TEB/MMU as those a/c affect LGA and EWR traffic flows.

The slots should be allocated based on who is flying to that airport. Why should slots be auctioned off to someone? If they wanted to fly here they can do it now but chose not to. If they want to fly later on then they can "lease" a slot from someone. DCA does that so why can't NY?

We also need to address the stone age technology of our ATC System. There is NO REASON why EWR/JFK/LGA should be experience 2 1/2 hour delays today due to 600ft cielings and 2 miles vis in light rain!!! What is going to happen when we get some Thunderstorms?

We need to use the money collected on AIRLINE Tickets and to collect FEEs from corporate jets to fund the modernization. The gov't has to stop using these tax dollars to offset the deficet or for something else. The corp players want the services then they need to pay their fair share.

The new system needs to be PERFORMANCE based. The modern airliners with with that can meet certain performance such as CPDLC, low RNP values etc should get priority as they can perform better and don't need as large of a safety bubble.

If ATC would clear the flight via a specific procedure and to cross a point in space at a specific min/sec the a/c computer can do that. Whatever the flight profile might be. The procedures have changed little but the technology onboard has. We don't need the amount of separation that we used to have when navigation was poor at best. Our a/c are within a couple of feet of where they say they are. This would open up alot more airspace.

If you aint got the technology onboard then you would get the delay until atc has room for you.

Granted airlines may overschedule at certain times of the day but the airport can handle alot more then ATC is putting out if they just got more modernized.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

The issue is not slot controls; they exist around the world.

The problem with this proposal is that it takes slots from one carrier and allows the government to turn around and sell them to someone else. If that doesn't give you serious concerns about your property rights, then you deserve everything the US government will do to you.

CO and DL both came out with press releases today opposing the slot auction. Hopefully, this can all be tied up in court until the Bush Administration is thrown out until another bunch of bureaucrats.

There was another tidbit in DL's "As always, Delta aircraft are in top operational condition...." Wanna guess which of its JFK network competitors that was targeted towards?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3552 times:



Quoting Adxmatt (Reply 11):
We also need to address the stone age technology of our ATC System. There is NO REASON why EWR/JFK/LGA should be experience 2 1/2 hour delays today due to 600ft cielings and 2 miles vis in light rain!!! What is going to happen when we get some Thunderstorms?

3 1/2 to 4 hour delays. And heck, it doesn't even take a thunderstorm.

The problems with slot controls for NYC are twofold: they'll increase prices by limiting supply and they'll be uncompetitive.

1) They'll increase prices by limiting supply. Let's take my favorite example (because I've done the research) and that is NYC-SFO. Not including SJC and OAK and not including code-shares, there are at least 40 flights daily on that route. The last time I counted it out based on manufacturers' recommended two-class layouts, that worked out to about 5,000 seats (+/-500? Just a guess). Most airlines use A320's, A319's, and 737's on this route. AA uses a few 767's and UA, DL, and CO use some 757's. Now, imagine if instead of 40 A320's flying, it becomes 15 A320's flying. Those seats will become like diamonds.

2) It's anticompetitive. If you give, say DL five slots daily on a route, and UA five slots daily on a route and B6 five slots daily on a route, and UA five slots daily on that route, what happens when someone else wants to move in and see if they can't win customers over with better service? They can't because they have to beg and plead competing carriers for slots. And if you have a slot, then with limited supply, you can simply limit the number of seats and charge a shyte-ton for crappy service. After all, what do you have to lose?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Now, the FAA could, in theory step in in a different way and say that they will only clear X flights per hour, and then let the airport figure out how to handle it (which is what they were initially talking about).

That's one interesting idea. Ultimately, it's just passing the buck on the particulars, but it's a way of adding more local control. It does nothing to encourage competition, other than a bidding war.

In my opinion, the free market, when balanced with certain regulation to keep things from going totally bazonkers, can be a wonderful thing.

So make a rule that on flights of over a certain distance, a certain minimum size aircraft must be used. Do you know that UA actually flies RJ's from IAD to JFK? That's NUTS. You could also base minimum size on the population of the destination city.

So in other words: if you are flying JFK/EWR to SFO, you are doing it in an aircraft with minimum 350 seats. Medium-to-long range flight (6 hours). Massive traffic. It should be flown with about 17 747's and about 14 A380's. I could even buy 21-23 773s. But it would reduce traffic significantly along the route. Why? Because airlines want to serve the route, but if they find out that they have to use a 350 seat plane, they have to fill it. And if they want to fill it, then they have to compete with other carriers. And someone's plane is going to fly empty and they are going to pull out of the market or code-share with another carrier. Or they won't want to devote VLA's to it and code-share. Either way, size floors would stop the "3 flights an hour to a 3000 mile-distant destination." And it would make airlines compete for customers without relying on frequency as their selling point.


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3435 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Do you know that UA actually flies RJ's from IAD to JFK?

Did you know that Independence Air, at startup, flew a regional jet EVERY HOUR between IAD and JFK? Did you also know that, before Independence Air's startup, Atlantic Coast flew J-41's for UA from IAD to JFK?



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

and then you get into the whole debate whether private planes which carry far fewer peopl than a J41 should be allowed to fly into NYC airspace if RJs are not permitted.

The reality is that the market will fix the capacity issue in NYC because fuel prices do not support RJ flying anymore. Airlines are not going to quit flying their RJs and abandon their slots but they will replace those RJ flights with more economical or larger aircraft as soon as they can. CO is already replacing RJs with Q400s while DL and CO are both upgauging aircraft to get better use of the available slots.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3373 times:

The airlines really aren't the problem here -- it's an ATC system that is decades behind on EVERY serious effort to modernize.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3292 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 16):
The airlines really aren't the problem here -- it's an ATC system that is decades behind on EVERY serious effort to modernize.

Yes the ATC system is a problem, but I am so sick of the finger pointed at that being the problem. The problem is there just is not enough concrete in NYC to support what airlines are trying to put there, and that is a problem that no ATC modernization can fix.

To give you an example, the airlines schedule EWR with the assumption that 11-29 will always be available (In fact weather doesn't allow it over half the time). They can put down about 45 plans an hour with 11-29. They can only land 36 an hour without it during the busy time. Thats an extra 9 planes an hour. Given the peak demand runs from about 1800 Z to Midnight Z, thats about 6 hours, so when all is said and done, with no room for atc to recover in any hour, thats an extra 54 planes that the airlines are scheduling into the airport that it cannot handle. The ONLY way to deal with this is for a ground delay program, and thats why you get your 2 hour delays into EWR on a daily basis. If airlines only scheduled 36 flights an hour into EWR (Read: 757's and 767's less frequently than 737's and RJs), this would rarely be a problem.

Same deal with LGA. Airlines schedule it all day for about 40 planes an hour. The fact is LGA can only handle 40 planes an hour on the 13/22 config, and even then, only if its VFR. The 31-4 config can land 38, and most other configs can only land 36. Given its scheduled this way all day, there is just no room to recover in any hour. Result being, you have over 50 planes more each day than the airport can put down. Thus you get delays. Airlines need to schedule with the worst case scenario in mind, but they always schedule as though every day is going to be beautiful VFR weather and ideal winds. This is careless and is costing the Airlines a lot of money, whether they realize it or not.

JFK is the best laid out of the three airports. The problem JFK has is it shares airspace with LGA and EWR. If they could do full ILS to the 13's, I don't think this airport would ever have a problem.

I will say this much though. In any event, NY Tracon and ATC do one heck of a job to handle the demand that they do get.

Truth be told, I personally think the Port Authority should control the slots, and not the government, because it is in all their customers best interest to do so. But the way they run things, I don't think they would be any better. But they do nothing to help the problem at all.

The only Airport I think that could benefit from new technology is BOS. They do visual approaches to 4L all the time, and the runway is not too close to 4R. So my question is, why can't they put an ILS on 4L and install a PRM? This would be great, it would help with the delays considerably in IFR conditions. And NIMBY's wouldn't have much ammunition against this either.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3244 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
The reality is that the market will fix the capacity issue in NYC because fuel prices do not support RJ flying anymore.

Again, this "market" BS. Please explain to me how "the market" is any different than what we are doing now.

"Keep doing what we're doing now" is, and I'm not going to mince words, an idiotic idea.


User currently offlineKalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3198 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Again, this "market" BS. Please explain to me how "the market" is any different than what we are doing now.

Maybe market may need some help? If slots are too much of an issue, let's see how schedule can work without slots. Lets say, slap a small fine for those flights which arrive (not depart!) - for _absolutely any reason_ - more than 15 minutes late, say, more than 30 days a year, or 10% of flights for non-daily operations..
I assume something like $100 for per each seat on those flights would straighten things up pretty fast.
Once AA and UA have $200 price penalty at ORD and JFK over WX at MDW and ISP, something should happen.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

This is absolutely disgusting, but not surprising at all for the government.

It is absolutely outrageous to force airlines to give up resources they have owned and used for years - in some cases decades - and then turn around and force them to auction their own resources back to themselves. It is simply disgusting, and a total waste of time - if all the government wants is money (which is all they'll get out of this, as the airlines will simply bid up these slots at auction to buy them back for themselves), it would be easier and more fair to just raise fees or taxes - another horrible solution, but at least it would save the time of this whole auction nonsense.

And this is particularly egregious for airlines like American and Continental, and to a lesser extent JetBlue, that are spending billions upon billions (and in JetBlue's case hundreds of millions) building gleaming new terminals to serve the New York community. These three airlines - plus Delta - collectively employ hundreds of thousands of people in the area, pump hundreds of billions into the community annually, and provide vital investment and economic resources for the market, and yet they are now being punished because the FAA can't manage its airspace and New York's airports are overcrowded.

Now sure, I understand that the over-scheduling of these airports is a problem that needs to be addressed, but rather than confiscated the private property of companies (and yes, this if very much about property rights), why not just institute congestion pricing? There are many solutions far preferential to this discriminatory and unfair one.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4716 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

The problem with a slot auction for JFK is the likes of AA, DL and every foreign flag carrier can essentially price out an airline like B6, who just built a new terminal at JFK. I cant think if a bigger looser in a slot auction than Jet Blue.


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3174 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Now sure, I understand that the over-scheduling of these airports is a problem that needs to be addressed, but rather than confiscated the private property of companies (and yes, this if very much about property rights), why not just institute congestion pricing? There are many solutions far preferential to this discriminatory and unfair one.

we are squarely in agreement on this... other than pointing that DL, not AA, is the largest slot holder at JFK and thus the most impacted by this nonsense.

There is no legal basis for what the DOT is doing and it will be tossed out hopefully on the heels of the the Mary Peters.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

World Traveler, you still haven't proposed a viable alternative to 1) slot auctioning and 2) leaving things as they are (which is not an option)

User currently offlineKalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3109 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
It is absolutely outrageous to force airlines to give up resources they have owned and used for years

Did they? Airports are not owned by airlines, we're talking about airlines (ab)using a shared resource.


25 SPREE34 : 600 and 2 kills visual approaches. If you are feeding a single runway vs parallels, technology isn't going to improve things much. At 3nm in trail to
26 Post contains links Corinthians : LGA, LHR, ORD, DCA and JFK have all been slot-controlled and they've had delay problems for as long as I can remember. So, it's fairly obvious that sl
27 Corinthians : Actually, it hasn't really worked in London. I go there pretty often and the city is as polluted and congested now as it was before they started cong
28 SHUPirate1 : In fact, he was so unpopular that he lost that re-election bid to somebody who's campaign slogan was "vote Tory and your wife will have larger breast
29 SPREE34 : I can't speak to Asia, but I have visited European facilities, they are no more advanced that the US system of today. I'd have a hard time fighting t
30 LTBEWR : If the Feds get into it, it will only help the foreign airlines who can afford to pay for those slots. Perhaps an alternaive would be to charge more f
31 Post contains links STT757 : The Port Authority's response: http://www.panynj.com
32 FlyPNS1 : DCA does NOT have delay problems. DCA runs smoothly almost everyday...except for when the weather is really bad. However, DCA has appropriate slot li
33 Post contains links Corinthians : I'm looking outside my window here and the conditions are "less than ideal". They're using three runways at JFK at the moment. So, are you suggesting
34 Commavia : Notice how in my post I never used the words "paid for." I know that many of these airlines - especially AA - has had many of these "slots" going bac
35 Apodino : Again, I don't see why the Port Authority and the Airlines are saying fixing the ATC system with a more modern one is going to be the miracle cure for
36 Falcon84 : Airlines can't win, can they? If they fly RJ's on anything over 2 hours, people on here bitch about it. If they fly it on a short route to fill in of
37 FlyPNS1 : Conditions at JFK are not bad....maybe less than ideal, but not bad. Yes. Slot restrictions should be set to IFR conditions, not VFR. But you would s
38 DocLightning : RJ's were never meant to link the political and financial capitals of one of the largest countries in the world. RJ's are meant to link large cities
39 Corinthians : The airlines have been reacting to the decrease in demand. Air traffic is down or stagnant at most US airports this year. For instance, ORD has 10% l
40 Apodino : Ok, ORD may be true, since they can only handle 72 planes an hour vs 96 in VFR. But that should only be until the end of the year, because 9L-27R wil
41 DocLightning : The problem with Acela is that 1) it's slow as sin (3 hours at $120+? Puh-leeze...in Spain it would be €60 at 1.5 hours). 2) If you are connecting
42 WorldTraveler : let me reiterate ONCE AGAIN that the problem with what the DOT is proposing is SOLELY that it is taking slots from one airline and auctioning them off
43 MSYtristar : For folks living near IAD...absolutely. Add in the time it takes to get over to Union Station or one of the other stops in the metro area and it's no
44 Apodino : I have got to disagree with you on this one and raise the BS flag. Let me use a different example, ORD can handle 96 Arrivals an hour VFR, but only 7
45 Apodino : Are you nuts? No plane with 250 seats on that pair would ever make money. They would fly 2/3 empty most of the time, or be full of nothing but non re
46 Falcon84 : They were meant for shorter haul flights. And if an airline feels they can make money NYC-DC, espeically on off-peak hours with a 37, 50, 75, 90 seat
47 DocLightning : Fine. We'll just do it how we've been doing it and have 40 737's flying JFK/EWR to SFO every day. That doesn't cause any congestion. None at all.
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...
Any Update About BA LCY-NYC? posted Tue May 6 2008 09:20:52 by Spud757
Why No Tatl Flights From UK To LaGuardia NYC posted Fri May 2 2008 08:39:25 by Jwb2
AQ Slots @ SNA posted Thu May 1 2008 13:33:08 by Avi8tir
Landing/Takeoff Slots At LHR. How Much $? posted Thu May 1 2008 08:27:39 by Dintz
FlyBE Selling Slots And Trouble Rumours posted Thu May 1 2008 07:22:38 by Speedmarque
How Will $1 Busses Affect BOS-NYC-WAS Corridor? posted Mon Apr 28 2008 20:04:15 by BOStonsox
And The AA Slots From LGA-MSP Go To.... posted Fri Apr 25 2008 18:48:33 by AJMIA
How Do New Airlines Get Slots At DCA/LGA? posted Thu Apr 17 2008 06:07:23 by MOBflyer
U.S. Proposes Auctioning Runway Slots At LGA posted Thu Apr 17 2008 05:59:55 by Analog
Virgin America Complains About Lack Of EWR Slots posted Sat Apr 12 2008 19:32:40 by LAXintl