Ovrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Hypothetically speaking, if the Runway length at LGA's 4/22 were to be extended how would that change the size of aircraft in today's economy and congestion of the NYC metropolitan area?? It was once said that making aircraft larger and reducing frequencies was a major suggestion from the FAA in helping the problem out. Would it actually work, if you can get past the Port Authority and actually get the runway extended??
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
I think the disruption that would cause to the airport's schedule would be massive and that's probably the main argument against it.
I can't see any new aircraft being able to operate in, that cannot currently. Even a 747 can use a 7,000' runway. A 757 could fly t/a from a runway of this length (for example, Bristol, in the UK, from where CO flies a daily 757 operation). So, it's hard to see the economic rationale for it, particularly when set against the disruption (and cost) it would incur.
CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Thread starter): Hypothetically speaking, if the Runway length at LGA's 4/22 were to be extended how would that change the size of aircraft in today's economy and congestion of the NYC metropolitan area?
That subject has been discussed as far back as I can remember, and has been dismissed as many times. From what I remember as far back as the 70's, no four engine jets were permitted to operate there (DC-8's, 707's, 747's) as well as the perimeter rule, which was even more restrictive back then. Most of the intent was to keep int'l and longhaul traffic at JFK & EWR, and preserve Flushing Bay.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2372 times:
Doubtful.
DL's proven that 764ERs can operate out of LGA with no problem, but anything with more span than that is going to run into gate/maneuverability issues.
So even if there was a paradigm shift to bigger aircraft, you wouldn't really see anything being flown into there that's bigger than what it can/does routinely handle now.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2849 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
DC-10 and L-1011 were designed with LGA in mind. As mentioned, numerous later generation large aircraft are capable at LGA. It's simply a matter of time until the need for greater capacity efficiency outweighs the need for frequency. I personally think that time is now. Rather than extending a runway, PANYNJ ought to be thinking of a way to sieve out RJs flying between NYC and BOS, DCA, IAD, and ORD!
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6465 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Quoting CV880 (Reply 2): the perimeter rule, which was even more restrictive back then.
BooDog From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
Quoting Rampart (Reply 4): PANYNJ ought to be thinking of a way to sieve out RJs flying between NYC and BOS, DCA, IAD, and ORD!
And it's small RJ's! I'm sorry, but ER3's have NO business flying in and out of LGA under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
If an airport cannot support one CR7 or E70 frequency a day, then it doesn't need service to LGA. If it's a "boo hoo we don't have a flight from CMH to LGA leaving at the top of every hour" then suck it up because it's the NYC market, and sacrifices MUST be made.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
Quote: Got an example?
If I recall correctly, the original perimeter rule was actually less than LGA-DEN, but DEN was the farthest west hub at the time, and UA successfully lobbied to have it included, arguing that if DEN-LGA were permitted, then virtually all of the US could be connected to LGA.
The change, as far as I know, came in the form of (1) extending the perimeter rule to SLC, and (2) allowing Saturday flights from anywhere in the country.
Couldn't find any 747 pics at LGA, but in a pinch, 4/22 could handle it if necessary.
4/22 does not need to be extended - what should happen is that (1) NYC airspace be redesigned with added take-off & departure routes, and (2) sensible scheduling should return - meaning no scheduling of more flights than the airport can handle even under the best of conditions, and (3) understanding that not every city in the U.S. can logistically support an RJ flight into LGA.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2037 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 7): 4/22 does not need to be extended - what should happen is that (1) NYC airspace be redesigned with added take-off & departure routes, and (2) sensible scheduling should return - meaning no scheduling of more flights than the airport can handle even under the best of conditions, and (3) understanding that not every city in the U.S. can logistically support an RJ flight into LGA.
I agree 100%, but I'd also like to add one more point: (4) LGA should be limited to commercial aircraft only, and biz jets should be forced to use TEB. Just as airliners aren't allowed to use TEB, biz jets should not be allowed to use LGA's limited runway capacity.
It's unfair to make hundreds of passengers wait in line, just so an eight seat biz jet can take someone from Wall Street to AGS for a round of golf!
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
Quote: I agree 100%, but I'd also like to add one more point: (4) LGA should be limited to commercial aircraft only, and biz jets should be forced to use TEB. Just as airliners aren't allowed to use TEB, biz jets should not be allowed to use LGA's limited runway capacity.
AGREED 100%!!!!!!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Quoting CV880 (Reply 10): IAH was about as far as one could go. DEN was not an option.
LGA-DEN (1620 miles) has "grandfather rights" since nonstops on that route existed when the 1500 mile perimeter rule was introduced. I'm pretty sure it's the only exception (except on Saturday when the rule doesn't apply). IAH is slightly under the limit at 1416 miles.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4720 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
With a little imagination and a fairly short piered taxiway, they could put a parallel runway on Rikers Island. With a little more imagination they could use the prisoners to do the work.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1608 times:
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 12): With a little imagination and a fairly short piered taxiway, they could put a parallel runway on Rikers Island. With a little more imagination they could use the prisoners to do the work.
Planeguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1066 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
LGA is the airport I use most these days (living in Manhattan and all).
I would say part of the problem with aircraft size is the accees to the gates. Some piers simply don't have quite enough space to put widebodies and some taxiways are close enough that larger wingspans may prove a major challenge. So fitting aircraft at LGA is more than just what the runway can handle. While a number of larger aircraft operated there in the past - it was also at a time of fewer flights and thus less need for gate space.
LGA has grown into something that it was never designed to be - and addressing it one piece at a time does not seem to be working.
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2037 posts, RR: 13 Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
At one time, there were plans to demolish the B and C concourses of the main terminal, and replace them with one wider concourse. This would have made the alleys between the concourses a lot wider.
Litz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 15): At one time, there were plans to demolish the B and C concourses of the main terminal, and replace them with one wider concourse. This would have made the alleys between the concourses a lot wider.
Are these plans still under consideration?
Where on earth would you put everyone (and all the planes) currently using B and C in order to do so?
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2849 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting Planeguy727 (Reply 14): LGA has grown into something that it was never designed to be - and addressing it one piece at a time does not seem to be working.
LOL! It was designed for DC-4s, Connies, and PanAm Clippers! LGA today sort of fits it all in like an overstuffed person in a vinyl bodysuit.
MDW is similar.
Quoting BooDog (Reply 6): If an airport cannot support one CR7 or E70 frequency a day, then it doesn't need service to LGA. If it's a "boo hoo we don't have a flight from CMH to LGA leaving at the top of every hour" then suck it up because it's the NYC market, and sacrifices MUST be made.
True. However, I can understand the argument that a number of smaller communities, some as EAS, ought to be connected to NYC as their regional node, not because they need access to the world's financial center. Thus, there is a need for some small aircraft to feed into NYC. Does this have to be LGA, or could JFK or EWR better handle that capacity? Probably the latter. On the other hand, it would not be an effiicient or fair plan to shunt regional traffic needing to get to NYC to, say, ISP or SWF.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 15): At one time, there were plans to demolish the B and C concourses of the main terminal, and replace them with one wider concourse. This would have made the alleys between the concourses a lot wider.
Are these plans still under consideration?
Here's the latest plans; and those of the other NYC airports as well.
LGA had a nonstop to DEN in 1953-- it may have ended when DC-7s appeared. It may not have resumed until 1981, when CO started it with 72Ss. But does anyone know of any rule that ever prohibited LGA-DEN?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
