Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 866 times:
Here's something I've thought about. I know it would be difficult for the airlines, and some would be against it, but why not use larger aircraft to relieve congestion at larger airports? Use an A321 to replace two 737 flights. Use a 764 to replace 2-3 A319 flights. 773 to replace 4-5 DC-9 flights. Etc.
Like to hear your thoughts on this. Pros and cons.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3025 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 807 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
it would ease airside congestion but congest landside even more. and if Congress tried to pass a law to that effect it would be struck down as un-constitutional and a violation of the 1978 deregulation act.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Derek H From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 797 times:
And the flights leave at differnt times (someone said connections). Somtimes if you are going on vacation, you want to leave at like 8 a.m. or so, if they only did one or two flights, you might have to leave at 5 a.m. or at like 2 p.m. So it is a conveince thing. Its good ot have multiple flights. If your flight gets cancled, you are hoping there are move leaving soon so you can get outta there.
Lsjef From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 786 times:
The idea is not unreasonable, but likely impossible to pass for various reasons. In my opinion, the only way it can happen is for the free market to put pressure on airlines to "need" to size up thweir fleet in order to fill demand at the congested airport. That means, among other things, Congress should not encourage the industry to invest huge money into expensive supersizing schemes for airports that are already overcrowded. Building runways in Bays and adding umpteenth runways against huge environmental opposition is both costly and absurd, especially when other communities are begging to have airlines come and serve, with good local jobs, etc. Has anyone else noticed how bad many airline jobs appear to be getting at these over-sized hubs...?
A good example is SFO. Airlines need to fly heavies into this airport because of it's limitations...and they do. But, efforts to squeeze out smaller aircraft run into heavy resistance. Smaller carriers (and feeders) cry foul and anti-commerce; at the same time, AOPA is very effective at lobbying against limiting civilian access to publicly funded hubs. And efforts to build new runways, well....
The frequency issue is often taken too far. Yes, 6-8 737s/day is better than 2-3 jumbos/day. But, a city-pair like SEA-PDX does not need 40-50 flights/day over fifteen hours, many of them feeders. And it is ironic that many of these half-hourly feeders are routinely cancelled (with passengers pushed to the next flight), just to make needed loads. I wonder how many of these cancellations are reflected in the airline performance reports that weigh so heavily in rising consumer dissatisfaction?
If congestion is a problem we really want to solve, Congress could pass laws that would encourage use of the hundreds of underused (and many unused!) potential US commercial airports. Eliminating the huge advantage the biggest hubs have in raising capital by changing the PFC law would be a great place to start. Perhaps a law that compels airport authorities to demonstrate a workable plan WITHOUT JUST GROWING A BIGGER CONGESTION PROBLEM AIRSIDE AND/OR LANDSIDE before getting approval to instate PFC charges? And, perhaps more FAA money budgeted into airport grants to seed development at the unused airports? These are two examples of laws that would slowly reduce the monopoly effect of the major airlines at our congested, publicly-funded hubs.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 772 times:
Multiple flights a day are good for business passengers like I am, but on trunk routes sometimes its simply too much. One example. I´m flying FRA-MUC quite often, where LH uses mainly A300s and A321s. Sometimes you have 3 flights in just 90 minutes, for example in the middle of the afternoon.
I think its better to use one A340 every hour during rush-hours than multiple planes every 30 minutes. I had the comparison last week: Going with the A340, return with the A300 same day. What a difference in comfort!
LBA From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 762 times:
On charter flights I can't see why this doesn't happen. The route from any major UK airport to Palma, Majorca is extremely busy during the summer. In some instances three flights can be arriving at say MAN from Palma within five minutes of each other and two may be the same charter airline using say two 737, 757, A320 etc. Wouldn't it make sense for the operator to charter a MD11, 747 etc and do one flight on the route? Think how many slots would be made available if this were to happen on just 10% of charter flights. I know this sounds simplistic and there are probably good reasons why it doesn't happen, but I'd be interested to hear other peoples views.
Planenutz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 752 times:
United operated 737 flights every half hour between SFO-LAX. THis is in addition to other airlines scheduled services on this route (Delta, Alaska, American).
Because SFO is so congested, about two years ago they asked Unnited to investigate the use of larger equipment on the route, with fewer flights a day. This was spawned by an incident where the Mayor of San Francisco was on a UA flight to LA, and was delayed 4 hours because of ATC.
I don't know what came of it, but SFO had the idea of UA introducing the 747-400D, the aircraft used solely in the Japanese domestic market, on the route (400 passengers crammed into all one class).