Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Larger Aircraft: Simple Congestion Reliever?  
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1080 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.


11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

If you want business and connecting passengers, you'd better have multiple flights a day.


User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Because not all markets could allow such a practice.

User currently offlineGuerosinfe From Brazil, joined Mar 2001, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

They probably don't have the people to do a full 767 flight, airlines better do 3 737 full flights in a very close time.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

OK, what if our boys in Congress passed a law to this extent. Would it ease congestion?

User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3191 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1021 times:

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.
User currently offlineDerek H From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1011 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.

User currently offlineLsjef From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1000 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.

User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11588 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 986 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!

User currently offlineLBA From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 976 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.

User currently offlinePlanenutz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 966 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).

User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1456 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 947 times:

Boeing also some airports don't have the facilities to handle larger aircraft as well.

Treat others as you expect to be treated!
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...
Allegiant Evaluating Larger Aircraft posted Tue Nov 25 2008 05:52:52 by LatinAviation
BA Larger Aircraft At LHR/LGW posted Fri Nov 14 2008 05:08:37 by Richardw
PUW Cleared For Larger Aircraft posted Tue Sep 12 2006 06:57:38 by RwSEA
Larger Aircraft Now Allowed In Pullman-Moscow posted Mon Aug 21 2006 01:54:34 by AirlineBrat
Explain Lack Of Larger Aircraft-India Domestic Rte posted Mon May 30 2005 10:33:01 by LAXDESI
Acceleration On Larger Aircraft? posted Wed Apr 13 2005 11:44:29 by 3green
No Aft Engines On Larger Aircraft? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 03:12:43 by Aerohottie
MSY Runway Closure = Larger Aircraft? posted Wed Jul 21 2004 18:13:01 by MSYtristar
Extra Frequency Or Larger Aircraft? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 20:55:14 by KLM exel
What Routes Should Have Larger Aircraft On Them? posted Wed Mar 12 2003 07:40:35 by Ryefly