N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3685 posts, RR: 4 Posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2862 times:
Seems like there's a few raindrops in the NYC area today, so I checked the faa.gov website to see how big the delays were already.... almost 3 hours into JFK, 1 hour into LGA, 1.5 hours into EWR.
I noticed on the FAA site they have a video about "NextGen" which is supposed to fix the problems of all these delays... I don't think it will work.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2097 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
It will help in the sense that equipment will be upgraded, ADS-B will increase areas that "RADAR type" separation can be used, and some cockpit automation will actually be usable.
NextGen is NOT going to solve our delay problems. When an airport can accept 62 (random number) arrivals in an hour, and 115 (random number) are scheduled, there will be delays. To fix this, the airport has to be modified to accommodate the extra demand. That means more runways. It really is that simple.
ATC and the aircraft can have the latest and greatest equipment cooperating via data link, maintaining minimum separation all the way to the runway threshold, and you still can't put more airplanes on to the runway than 60 minutes will allow.
In the NYC area, add to the mix the issues of EWR, JFK,and LGAs traffic patterns crossing each others. Maybe the tighter tolerances of GPS could help with better routing. Then you have to deal with the noise complainers, politics, and environmental studies. In the end, the 1 runway is still only going to accept a given amount of traffic in an hour.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2733 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1): NextGen is NOT going to solve our delay problems.
The FAA could do a lot more to reduce congestion by forcing the airlines to end slot-squatting at LGA, EWR and JFK. Flying an ERJ 135 LGA-CLE as AA does wastes a landing slot and keeps airfares high.
Adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
The video seems to imply that pilots wont be talking to controllers as much as just recieving messages via computer. I hope that is not the case totally because I think that hearing someone give a command will be noticed quicker and lead to the appropriate response sooner. For example, an emergency hold short call would not be safe, IMO, if all it was was a message flashing on the screen, even if there is a beep involved.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 1): When an airport can accept 62 (random number) arrivals in an hour, and 115 (random number) are scheduled, there will be delays. To fix this, the airport has to be modified to accommodate the extra demand. That means more runways. It really is that simple.
No, not at all. If you really want simple the very obvious answer is using larger aircraft to cut down on the number of arrivals and, by whatever means, this must be forced on the airlines if necessary. Yes, one will then argue that some frequency must surely be cut to accommodate this approach. If that's the case, then so be it!
Any airport is a finite physical entity......why should billions be spent providing new runways ad hoc when those same airlines are simply going to over schedule again?
Frequency is a by-word in the US, but it equally shouldn't be the be-all, end-all and, if necessary people can simply wait for another hour on a flight. As a matter of interest, and common sense, it is not an airport's responsibility to get people to and from somewhere just when they demand!
Essentially, if the airlines are not made to use larger aircraft/reduce flights, then simply put up with the delays because it's not going to change.
It is that simple.
Not in the Free Market philosophies (what's left) that the US runs on. Government interference is not the answer, and is being proven out in the courts right now.
The airport operators could affect some change by charging landing fees that varied by time of day and aircraft type. Example, between 4pm and 7pm charge higher landing fees. Between 4pm and 7pm charge a CRJ2 or E134-145 five times the fee of a E-190/737/320 etc.
The passenger can then look at the fares and decide how badly they really need to arrive or leave during peak times.
Government mandate of equipment type would also create scheduling and positioning problems elsewhere in the system. It's just bad business.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Its all well and good to build more runways, but what needs to be done is a complete redesign of NYC airspace (already in the works) and this is a part of NextGen. Currently, there are 4 airports in the NYC area within a 20 NM radius with various intersecting flows and I am currently working on a project which deconflicts all these flows. Some of the NYC airports are NOT at full runway capacity and are limited by the various approach and departure flows around them.
Bigger aircraft is not necessarily the solution as you need large runway threshold separation to deal with the wake vortices. It does not make economic sense for a few airlines either.
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2424 times:
Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 6): Its all well and good to build more runways, but what needs to be done is a complete redesign of NYC airspace (already in the works) and this is a part of NextGen. Currently, there are 4 airports in the NYC area within a 20 NM radius with various intersecting flows and I am currently working on a project which deconflicts all these flows. Some of the NYC airports are NOT at full runway capacity and are limited by the various approach and departure flows around them.
Bigger aircraft is not necessarily the solution as you need large runway threshold separation to deal with the wake vortices. It does not make economic sense for a few airlines either.
That all sounds like drivel to me. The runway layouts at JFK, LGA and EWR are unchanged since the 1960s and the congestion has been there almost as long. If the airspace is poorly organized, it is not necessary to wait for NextGen to reorganize it.
Currently, the only airport that can handle 2 simultaneous landings in inclement weather is JFK and that is only under favorable wind conditions. DEN can handle more simultaneous landings in inclement weather than all three PANY airports combined.
Bigger aircraft may not be a solution the airlines like, but it does make it possible for airports such as LHR and HKG to handle many more passengers with fewer operations.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2389 times:
Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 6): Bigger aircraft is not necessarily the solution as you need large runway threshold separation to deal with the wake vortices. It does not make economic sense for a few airlines either.
We're not talking about bringing in widebodies to LGA, merely switching out ERJs and CRJs with 737s and A320s scaling back on frequency.
The main driver behind the congestion is that there are simply more scheduled flights than the airport can handle. Optimizing traffic patterns and data transmissions can go a long way, but does not solve the ultimate problem. Maybe, in airports such as LGA, having hourly ERJ departures to certain cities is no longer feasible, and switching to departures every two hours with an A320 makes more sense.
Imposing equipment requirements at airports would be overstepping bounds, but a more market-based solution, such as augmenting landing fees for RJ aircraft during peak times to make them marginally less competitive, could be a potential solution. For example, charge an A320 the same landing fees as an ERJ.
Eghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
Quoting Cba (Reply 8): For example, charge an A320 the same landing fees as an ERJ.
I have never understood why airports charge landing fees on the basis of weight. Could it be because of the GA aircraft lobby?
An A320 landing requires just as much service from ATC and uses (congests) the airport facility just as much as a B767, but they are charged very different fees.
P3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 9): An A320 landing requires just as much service from ATC and uses (congests) the airport facility just as much as a B767, but they are charged very different fees.
The heavy requires additional seperation standards of 4 or 5 miles as opposed to 2.5 or 3 for the A320.
Funny thing is most of these Rj Sh*ts are more advanced then some of the current stuff the big boys have. Other then CO most airlines have done little in investing in the Next Gen navigation requirements.Yeah an RNAV approach here and an RNAV approach there but other then that not much.
Plus another good thing possibly is that some of these low time Rj drives have already had training, even if the most basic, on RNAV stuff which is a lot better then having a major airline try to teach this to a 30 year capt that will never fly one except for the sim. I have an example....... I was talking a highish time 777 pilot who said you could hand build RNAV approaches
If WN is successful with their next gen RNP conversion, then Next Gen/HAR will be a success but if WN fails then this will just fade into the past like so many other things.
True but CPDLC and ADS-B have been going on outside the US (The High Frequency area in US centers have it already) for years and has been a great success. Plus it might been even better to use CPDLC in an emergency, if able, to get better and clearer communication about the problem and plan of action.
As much as I dig this PBN/Next Gen stuff I feel that what the FAA is proposing and what will actually be fully implemented is two different things.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 9): I have never understood why airports charge landing fees on the basis of weight. Could it be because of the GA aircraft lobby?
The heavier an airplane is, the more wear it will cause on a runway. Thus, larger (and heavier) planes are charged more, because theoretically, they do more "damage" to the surface. GA planes aren't charged, because more often than not, it'd be more expensive to collect the fee than the fee is actually worth.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 7): Bigger aircraft may not be a solution the airlines like, but it does make it possible for airports such as LHR and HKG to handle many more passengers with fewer operations.
There is another option to bigger a/c and more runways, capping capacity at the airport, also quite simple. Airports already have a capacity limit based on their actual infrastructure so reduce it by 10% and have it remain at that, if airlines want to maintain their current a/c or increase the size, its their choice. One effect of this physical reduction in expansion and or reduction in "slots" is that what you have becomes more precious, you ultimately have to use it more wisely as you no longer have unlimited options.
Silentbob From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1644 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2101 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 2): The FAA could do a lot more to reduce congestion by forcing the airlines to end slot-squatting at LGA, EWR and JFK. Flying an ERJ 135 LGA-CLE as AA does wastes a landing slot and keeps airfares
high.
That only works if you retire the slots, something Eagle asked the FAA to do last year. Rather than give those slots to someone else to fly the same routes against them, they added flights back into their schedule.
Ending the squatting is a great idea but given what happened in Chicago, you will not see any airline voluntarily return slots in the NYC area. I believe a minimum 10-15% reduction on weekdays is needed.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8493 posts, RR: 43 Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 5): Not in the Free Market philosophies (what's left) that the US runs on. Government interference is not the answer, and is being proven out in the courts right now.
"Government interference" = the current practice of price controls of landing fees.
NextGen is great, but it can easily be overwhelmed again without changing how we price airport's service (landing services) to the airlines.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Well of course not, NextGen is not designed to make thunderstorms disappear and rearrange runways and expand airports. All it changes is how traffic is handled and how planes will get to their destinations.
I use ADS-B on a daily basis. The system is incredibly capable and reliable. It is definitely the wave of the future.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2097 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 9): I have never understood why airports charge landing fees on the basis of weight. Could it be because of the GA aircraft lobby?
An A320 landing requires just as much service from ATC and uses (congests) the airport facility just as much as a B767, but they are charged very different fees.
The heavier the aircraft the more wear on the runway surfaces. Just like the Tollways, the heavier vehicles pay a higher toll.
It's a landing fee and has nothing to do with ATC.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Eghansen,
One of the goals of NextGen IS to reorganize the airspace. You can't get up one day and say you want to revamp all the flows going into an airport. To be able to reorganize flows, you would want to take advantage of the new technology that is out there such as Time Based Metering, ADS-B, GPS, RNAV RNP approaches etc, whose development is all part of NextGen/
Also, I am not saying that you shouldn't build new runways. It takes a lot of time, money and its not easy to convince people to build runways near their houses.
Yes, it does allow HKG, LHR to handle more traffic, but airlines add a larger aircraft it if if does not make economic sense. Why doesn't Delta buy A380s and reduce daily flights from ATL-LAX from 8 (not sure about the number) to 2 or 3? There is a trade-off between frequency and capacity for certain city pairings.
Also, all the CRJs and ERJs are termed as 'Large' aircraft by the FAA as their take-off weight is in excess of 41000 lbs, therefore putting them in the same category as the B737s and A320s. They will all require the same separation on arrival, but departures may be able to be cut back. There isn't a large difference in capacity between these aircraft either.
Mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 528 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2008 times:
Sure I'm for reorganizing the airspace and everything....
But I'm against NextGen for one reason...ask anyone in the actual involvement of NextGen and they will tell you it's a system of Sub-contractors...
I don't know about you, but I don't want MY NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM controlled by the lowest bidder of a contract.
NextGen will privatize the NAS, who will look to cut budgets, nickel & dime everything. It's Penny Wise Pound Foolish, if you ask me. Look at towers that already staffed by subcontractors and it's full of incompetence left & right.
GPS landing is great, but is security flawed...all you need to do is offset the signal by 40 or 50 feet and you have an incident. It can be done using something as small as a backpack, now you try and jam every ILS signal out there...going to take alot of work, and your going to get noticed very quickly.
The FAA needs to wake up and realize that somethings can't be changed, like the airspace around NY. Too many airports, too many planes...too little space.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3685 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 20): Well of course not, NextGen is not designed to make thunderstorms disappear and rearrange runways and expand airports. All it changes is how traffic is handled and how planes will get to their destinations.
But in the video, the FAA claims that it will make my flights "on time more often" (quoted directly from the end of the video).
NextGen is NOT going to make that happen at EWR or LGA on its own. There are going to have to be other changes as others have stated above.
25 P3Orion: Which Contract Tower is staffed with incompetent controllers?
26 DocLightning: Or just start allocating slots, period. Slot control is going to force airlines to fly appropriately-sized aircraft into appropriately-sized markets.
27 BW424: I was privileged to attend ITT's conference at MIA hotel, introducing the system capabilities to various executives. In its presentation, where I do
28 KITH: If NextGen, or an airspace redesign makes 10-15% more air space then wont the airlines just schedule up to the new 10-15% increase in capacity? Also c
29 9V-SPJ: KITH, you do have a good point, but we do take into account this capacity growth when we do our studies for NextGen. All the improvements which are pr
30 SPREE34: The airspace capacity increase will not relate to an equal percentage increase in aircraft at the airport. The runway is already over scheduled. It's
31 PPVRA: Do you feel unsafe flying profit-seeking airlines? Are their pilots incompetent? Plenty of privatized ATCs around the world. Europe comes to mind. Ho
32 FLY2HMO: It will, once the system is fully implemented and when they get rid of transponder based radar. ADS-B will allow aircraft to be spaced much more accu
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3685 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1644 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8493 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
