Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Runway 11-29 At EWR -- General Delay Frustration  
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4907 times:

Last Saturday, I was flying EWR-STT on CO, and on a perfectly sunny day, with clear skies and no weather issues whatsoever, we pushed back from the gate on time at 9:14 AM and proceeded to taxi around and wait for an entire hour before finally taking off.

It was one of the more bizarre taxiiing scenarios, to say the least -- we pushed back from Terminal C, sat on a taxiway next to 11-29 for about a half hour, taxiied around in circles, it seemed, for another half hour, and then finally took off at around 10:15 AM. Literally, at one point, it seemed like we were next for takeoff on 22R, and then we proceeded to taxi on to the runway, taxiied forward for about 30 seconds, and then pulled off on to a taxiway between 22R and 22L. We sat there for a few more minutes, and then finally taxiied back on to 22R from the other side of the runway, and then took off.

The entire time, with all of these planes waiting to take off, I didn't see a single aircraft take off or land on 11-29. What's the point of having a third runway if it never gets used -- and at an airport like EWR, which is perennially congested, why the heck doesn't EWR ATC take advantage of this runway that is sitting there, waiting to be used?

Sorry this rambled off topic a little bit, but it's somewhat cathartic for me to vent about what seemed to be ridiculous procedure.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4898 times:

It's shorter and cross wind to the others, so it can only be used by certain aircraft in certain conditions.

What was the weather like en route to STT? Did everyone get delayed or just your flight?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4845 times:

Based on EWR's airfield layout, they should never have been a hub. Huntsville, AL has more theoretical airfield capacity than EWR does.

and guess what, its not going to get any better!



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineRichiemo From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

It's happening everywhere and it has to simply be gross incompetence by many parties, FAA, Airlines, airports etc. I flew PHL to ATL last week, perfect weather in between both and in most of the country, but 2 hr delay anyway. And on the return trip, aircraft pulled up to the gate one and a half hours before departure. But cleaning crew was delayed, boarding was disorganized, and sure enough, departed an hour late. The lateness and delays have become part of the accepted culture in this industry and it's maddening. And yes, too many hubs that aren't designed for such, EWR and PHL as perfect examples - and no, it won't get any better.

User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4802 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's shorter and cross wind to the others, so it can only be used by certain aircraft in certain conditions.

What was the weather like en route to STT? Did everyone get delayed or just your flight?

I understand that it can only be used under certain conditions, but there was literally almost no wind at all...like maybe 5 mph, tops. And as far as certain aircraft, when we finally did take off, there was everything from ERJs to a 767 in line for 22R, so it didn't seem like an aircraft size restriction was the reason.

The weather en route was perfect -- maybe one or two bumps, max. Everyone else on the ground was delayed as well, but the pilot blamed everything on congestion and didn't even mention weather when he apologized for the flight delay.

Quoting Richiemo (Reply 3):
And on the return trip, aircraft pulled up to the gate one and a half hours before departure. But cleaning crew was delayed, boarding was disorganized, and sure enough, departed an hour late.

In this case, that can be blamed entirely on the airline (a guess here would be US, because DL seems to be too on the ball for something like that, although I could be wrong)...if they can't get their act together operationally, then nobody can fix that but them.


User currently offlineRP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

On a semi-related note, I thought I had read somewhere that pilots landing on r/w 11 (or perhaps 29) have to undergo a special training applicable for using that runway. Might be a special RNAV procedure. Anyone have any info on this?

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4707 times:



Quoting Richiemo (Reply 3):
But cleaning crew was delayed, boarding was disorganized, and sure enough, departed an hour late.

This is something I've noticed. Airlines need to give themselves more time to board. On every last domestic flight I've been on in the last year, boarding has commenced 20 minutes prior to departure on aircraft as large as a 763 and full. You can't board a full 763 in 20 minutes. And the plane had been sitting at the gate for a good hour, so there must have been time to clean and cater it. Not that there's much catering to do in today's domestic market.

As for the NYC airports, I'll never forget being #42 in line for takeoff at LGA. And I had to connect at DTW. O.M.G. *facepalm* I mean, SFO may not be the shining example of an on-time airport, but at least it doesn't suffer from the congestion and you can get just about anywhere you need in the world in a non-stop (except, frustratingly, MAD and MEL).


User currently offlineRP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4661 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
I'll never forget being #42 in line for takeoff at LGA

Good thing you departed during an off-peak hour. You should see how bad it is during the rush hours.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17056 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Wow, it sounds horrible. Sad to hear this. I will be flying in two weeks time from/to EWR and wonder if I can expect a long taxi/delay on CO1502 (6.50pm departure time on a Wed) to LAX? And how about arrivals? Do they usually have to taxi for ages to get to a gate? How bad is it to arrive on a Thursday at 4.50pm?


Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineNorthwestEWR From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

Flew out of Newark on Friday morning, after about 30 minutes in line, having been #21 in line for 4L. It's just getting worse, Newark is just awful these days.


ARJ 319 320 333 717 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 753 762 772 CRJ CR9 ER3 ERJ FRJ J31 J41 D9S D94 D95 M81 M82 M88
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4479 times:



Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 4):
I understand that it can only be used under certain conditions, but there was literally almost no wind at all...like maybe 5 mph, tops. And as far as certain aircraft, when we finally did take off, there was everything from ERJs to a 767 in line for 22R, so it didn't seem like an aircraft size restriction was the reason.

What does that have to do with 11-29? It is often used for landing only. Was it unused entirely, or being used for landings?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4436 times:



Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 4):
I understand that it can only be used under certain conditions, but there was literally almost no wind at all...like maybe 5 mph, tops. And as far as certain aircraft, when we finally did take off, there was everything from ERJs to a 767 in line for 22R, so it didn't seem like an aircraft size restriction was the reason.

Yeah, it is a size restriction. 29 is just too short to be used by most of the airplanes that fly into EWR, unless you want to shut down the 22s (which would be counterproductive). The Dash 8s could probably manage it, but anything bigger is going to have to be very light (i.e. not going very far). RJs don't have very good field performance (though ERJs are better than the CRJ200s).

Quoting RP TPA (Reply 5):
On a semi-related note, I thought I had read somewhere that pilots landing on r/w 11 (or perhaps 29) have to undergo a special training applicable for using that runway. Might be a special RNAV procedure. Anyone have any info on this?

Sometimes when the winds are strong out of the northwest EWR will land on 29 using the ILS to 22L with a circling approach. It's a bit more complicated than your regular landing, but I don't think it would require special training.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4409 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
On every last domestic flight I've been on in the last year, boarding has commenced 20 minutes prior to departure

Just about every domestic flight I've been on in the last year (all CO) has boarded 35 minutes before departure, unless the inbound aircraft was late arriving.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 8):
Wow, it sounds horrible. Sad to hear this. I will be flying in two weeks time from/to EWR and wonder if I can expect a long taxi/delay on CO1502 (6.50pm departure time on a Wed) to LAX?

IIRC the 5:30 PM-7:00 PM time departing EWR you get into the international departures which will give you more time on the taxiway just for extra frustration since they'll all be B752's, B762's,B764's and B772's for CO, among a few international carriers.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4383 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
Just about every domestic flight I've been on in the last year (all CO) has boarded 35 minutes before departure, unless the inbound aircraft was late arriving.

CO boards earlier than other airlines, in my experience (when the equipment is in on time, at least). They start 30-35 minutes before most flights, 45 minutes before transcons. Works for me, as it makes boarding less likely to result in a later departure. I don't know if it has to do with doing a faster turn on the cabin cleaning, or if they just have longer layover times in their schedule.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4342 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
What does that have to do with 11-29? It is often used for landing only. Was it unused entirely, or being used for landings?

My point was that it wasn't a certain type of aircraft (i.e. larger planes) that was waiting to take off on 22R. And it was totally unused. Not a takeoff or landing in 55 minutes.


User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1642 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Yeah, it is a size restriction. 29 is just too short to be used by most of the airplanes that fly into EWR, unless you want to shut down the 22s (which would be counterproductive). The Dash 8s could probably manage it, but anything bigger is going to have to be very light (i.e. not going very far). RJs don't have very good field performance (though ERJs are better than the CRJ200s).

I know MD-80’s use runway 29. One day last year while driving down the New Jersey Turnpike, EWR was using 29 for some landings, an AA MD-80 passed overhead about a quarter mile in front of us at about a hundred feet above the roadway, the runway threshold is not that far from the NJT and about a 90 degree right angle to the roadway.

I casually mentioned to my wife in my pilot voice, “Caution wake turbulence, landing MD-80”. Just then we got hit by the wake turbulence and felt it shake the car, and I was driving a 3300 pound car. I then explained to her about wake turbulence, how deadly it is, and that if it could shake our car, imagine what it could do to my C-150, she got a good lesson on wake turbulence that day.

11-29 is 6800 feet by 150 feet, so I would assume larger airplanes up to what can land on LGA’s 7000 foot runways should be able to use 11-29, but I do not know what the load bearing limits are, which would limit what airplanes can land on this runway. EWR also has very strict noise abatement restrictions, so I would assume that using 29 for takeoffs and 11 for landings would be very rare, because they would go over populated areas.

I have landed on 29 with our JetStar a few times, at the time the general aviation ramp was on the north side of the airport, so it was easier for us to land on 29 if the winds allowed it and then it was just a short taxi to Butler Aviation. One neat thing to see when landing on 29 at night, as you pass over the parking area where the new cars are parked after being unloaded off of the ships, as you make the approach, the landing lights would reflect off of the car reflectors, you see hundreds of the same cars reflectors light up at once.

I know of one airplane that took off on 29, I did in my C-150, one time I had to go to EWR to change a main tire on the JetStar and do a preflight, the pilots left it there for the weekend. Instead of driving, I loaded everything up, spare tire, jack and my tools in my C-150 and flew there, to keep me away from the big boys, I used 29 for landing and take off. I was a neat flight, took off from HPN, made a left turn at the Hudson River, got a TCA clearance for 1500 feet through the TCA, hung a right turn at the Statue of Liberty for a straight in for 29, best sightseeing flight ever.

JetStar


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4151 times:



Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 14):
My point was that it wasn't a certain type of aircraft (i.e. larger planes) that was waiting to take off on 22R. And it was totally unused. Not a takeoff or landing in 55 minutes.

Again, it's often used for landings only. But you don't know what the winds aloft were and why they were not able to use the runway, or that there wasn't some work being done on the runway or systems that support the runway. It was a Saturday, a generally light day, so that's the time for things like that.

How late were you getting into STT?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4128 times:



Quoting Jetstar (Reply 15):

The full length of 29 is fine for most airplanes, yes. But if you use the full length of 29, it interferes with the operations of the 22s, particularly landings on 22L. If you try and depart from an intersection so as to elliminate that interference, the runway becomes too short.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4101 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
As for the NYC airports, I'll never forget being #42 in line for takeoff at LGA

Every time I leave out oe EWR I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for that number. I remember second to last time I was out through EWR after sitting in the line for an hour and a half the captain announced that "it looked like" we were "somewhere around" number 32 for departure and they were "getting one off about every two minutes or so". Yeah, that's fun.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
Just about every domestic flight I've been on in the last year (all CO) has boarded 35 minutes before departure, unless the inbound aircraft was late arriving.

Yeah, CO's pretty good about starting boarding as soon as the crew is on board and gives the OK. Also makes it nice in going early when everyone who's suposed to be on board is on board (earliest I've ever left is :15 before scheduled -- actually, in 2008 "early" departures outnumbered "late" departures on all of my flights except for the two involving Newark



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4085 times:



Quoting Lincoln (Reply 18):
Yeah, CO's pretty good about starting boarding as soon as the crew is on board and gives the OK. Also makes it nice in going early when everyone who's suposed to be on board is on board (earliest I've ever left is :15 before scheduled -- actually, in 2008 "early" departures outnumbered "late" departures on all of my flights except for the two involving Newark

And they start boarding BF international flights an hour early, and routinely leave early. Well, leave the gate early. Then, of course, get in line for takeoff.

Though at IAH, the widebody international departures usually get to skip the line, and often take off from a different runway entirely. Nice to have 5 runways to play with.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4073 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Again, it's often used for landings only. But you don't know what the winds aloft were and why they were not able to use the runway, or that there wasn't some work being done on the runway or systems that support the runway. It was a Saturday, a generally light day, so that's the time for things like that.

How late were you getting into STT?

True -- all entirely valid points.

We ended up only being about 20 mins late to STT, but it's still frustrating that the flight times end up being so inflated to accommodate sitting there for nearly an hour before taking off.


User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1642 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4052 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
The full length of 29 is fine for most airplanes, yes. But if you use the full length of 29, it interferes with the operations of the 22s, particularly landings on 22L. If you try and depart from an intersection so as to elliminate that interference, the runway becomes too short.

I agree, we would always ask for 29 if the visibility allowed us to make a visual approach, a lot of times we would be ferrying over from HPN, which is only about 30 miles to the northeast as the crow flies, so it was easier for ATC to vector us around inbound traffic and we would do a visual approach to land on 29.

But looking on Google Earth, I can see the runways have been extended to the north, this was before they tore down the old North Terminal to extend the runways. Before then, the 22’s didn’t cross 11/29 so any airplane waiting in line to take off on the 22’s was south of 29. All that was required then was to make sure any airliner on either 22 was just throttled back to idle, so today I don’t know how using 29 would work out.

JetStar


User currently onlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4430 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4011 times:



Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 20):
sitting there for nearly an hour before taking off.

Did you fly back to EWR as well?

Your post only addresses half the problem. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've got on a flight here in MIA, we push back from the gate on time, then proceed to taxi to some remote corner of the airport, engines are turned off and the captain comes on and tells us about the congestion in the New York area (weather being fine both in Miami and New York) and how we will be sitting on the ground for another 90 minutes to 2 hours before we would be on our way.

It's one of the reasons that if there's any possible way to avoid EWR, I do!


User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Dont forget that all of the 3 big NYC airports (and to some extent, Im sure, TEB...) have to coordinate with each other on arrivals and departures....

Even if weather isnt the problem, vectoring departures and arrivals through the paths of LGA, JFK, EWR, and TEB's airspace must add to some of the delays for all of them



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3994 times:



Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 20):
We ended up only being about 20 mins late to STT, but it's still frustrating that the flight times end up being so inflated to accommodate sitting there for nearly an hour before taking off.

That's the cost of doing business for CO at EWR. They seem to deal with it fine.

It is frustrating that you waited an hour to take off, but you were only 20 minutes late, so isn't this a bit overblown? Did you miss the welcome reception at your hotel or something?  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Cory6188 : Yes -- no major delays on that end, although we were a little bit late due to the typical vectoring all over North Jersey before finally landing that
26 IAHFLYR : Who gave you that concept? If they use another runway from what the rest of the departures are using it would be more to do with an operational requi
27 Flyboy1108 : Haha I hear you...I'll never forget flying PHL-ATL in August and the captain coming over the PA system and saying "Ladies and gentlemen, I have count
28 Texan : Surprisingly, I have not yet been delayed into/out of LGA. EWR...#57 in line for take off on a clear Friday morning during the morning rush. Then we
29 Ikramerica : So why not get on Westin for not having enough frequency of the ferry (I assume you were on St. John), or why they didn't wait for the plane consider
30 Airzim : I've actually been on a Q400 that departed at the intersection with several ERJ's in line behind us. This has only happened once so it must have been
31 Mls515 : At EWR, turboprops can usually depart RWY 29 from intersection R, as to not interfere with the 22's. ERJ's pretty much need full length 29 but can do
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...
Left Turn To Land Rwy 29 At EWR? posted Fri Sep 5 2008 15:56:58 by Timz
Freq For Rwy 11 Arrivals At EWR? posted Thu May 24 2007 00:38:27 by Timz
EWR Runway 11-29 posted Sun Jul 31 2005 14:33:36 by Airknight
Approach To Runway 11 At EWR? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 15:47:07 by Timz
Any Hotels At EWR With A Runway/apron View? posted Fri Aug 17 2007 16:33:29 by BHXDTW
Runway Reconfiguration At LAX May Delay Flights posted Thu Aug 3 2006 03:16:13 by KarlB737
New Runway At EWR? posted Tue Jan 18 2005 00:12:09 by COEWR777
Runway Extension At EWR? posted Wed May 19 2004 04:39:06 by Cory6188
Runway Configuration At EWR posted Mon Sep 8 2003 22:58:45 by Potomac
Runway At EWR Closed posted Fri Sep 5 2003 01:09:53 by Ybacpa