Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DOT Scraps NYC Slot Auction  
User currently offlineCokePopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1179 posts, RR: 10
Posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

NEW YORK (AP) — The Transportation Department said Wednesday it will cancel proposal for "slot auctions" at New York City airports, following strong backlash from airlines and industry groups.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...wa_xsbTYJPcrfcf5FBHX8-DAQD985I1L80


This should be good for CO,DL and B6

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineSInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13741 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

and British Airways who was strongly opposed to it too I believe.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8484 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

Hahaha, gotta love corporate favoritism. Perhaps the DOT should rename itself in honor of its favorite corporate brands? Perhaps Lynne Osmus, Acting Administrator could be called the Delta / US Airways (tm) Acting Administrator.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3098 times:



Quoting CokePopper (Thread starter):
This should be good for CO,DL and B6

I 'recon so too. I won't be surprised to see a similar attempt a few years down the road though; as much as this industry evolves.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7468 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

How can technology shorten the seemingly interminable queues of aircraft waiting to take off at peak times?

I would have thought that wake turbulance was the main factor here. If so there is little that "modernizing the nation's air traffic control system with a satellite-based system" will do to reduce those queues.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12443 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2959 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 4):
How can technology shorten the seemingly interminable queues of aircraft waiting to take off at peak times?

It's not really a technological issue. Whatever incremental improvement in capacity that could be provided would instantly be absorbed at peak hours.

It's really a resource allocation issue, and thus political and bureaucratic in nature.

IMHO slots should be owned by the airport authorities and leased on 2 year cycles, with auctions upon renewal, with some percentage of slots held for new entrants. After you have a slot for 2 years, you should be able to pay market rates for it, or you should lose it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8484 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2940 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):

IMHO slots should be owned by the airport authorities and leased on 2 year cycles, with auctions upon renewal, with some percentage of slots held for new entrants. After you have a slot for 2 years, you should be able to pay market rates for it, or you should lose it.

Really? I think they should be allocated based on political power of the corporations and unions who presently enjoy advantaged access to these taxpayer properties. Oops, too late, I got my wish.  Big grin


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2803 times:



Quoting CokePopper (Thread starter):
This should be good for CO,DL and B6

Good move on the DOTs part. This was way overbored.
IMO they need to do the slots like LGB is done. X number of RJ slots X number of mainline slots. Mainline is anything with more than 100 seats (this way DL and US cant just put a bunch of CR9/E75s up there) I believe this will get more 737/M80/32S in NYC and still have RJ flights to some citys that are just to small for 737/M80/32S (they are out there just a small few)

alright flame away.



yep.
User currently offlineSpinner145 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2784 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 7):

Good move on the DOTs part. This was way overbored.
IMO they need to do the slots like LGB is done. X number of RJ slots X number of mainline slots. Mainline is anything with more than 100 seats (this way DL and US cant just put a bunch of CR9/E75s up there) I believe this will get more 737/M80/32S in NYC and still have RJ flights to some citys that are just to small for 737/M80/32S (they are out there just a small few)

alright flame away.

I didn't find it over boring at all!

I think the Transportation Department again showed that it is no spine, and that its real constituency is the entrenched airlines, not the flying public. The current system, everybody agrees, is terrible for travelers, and flight delays are endemic. It works just fine, though, for the airlines, as they are able to schedule unlimited slots at the most desirable times, when people want to fly most and will pay the biggest premium for tickets. And the airlines of course owe their customers nothing when this over-scheduling leads to two hour delays, negating the whole reason their customers paid premium prices for those tickets.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2762 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
IMHO slots should be owned by the airport authorities and leased on 2 year cycles, with auctions upon renewal, with some percentage of slots held for new entrants. After you have a slot for 2 years, you should be able to pay market rates for it, or you should lose it.

The problem is airlines are the ones making investments at the airports in terminal infrastructure, for instance CO invested $1.3 Billion in expanding their EWR facilities between 1999 and 2003. They would not have made those investments if they could potentially lose their flights every two years, no airline would make any improvements. And airports that depend on cities to improve facilities often are much worse off, look at LAX. The problem with having the airpots control the slots is that the airports in places like PHL and LAX are controlled by the City, and in many cases are exploited by local political machines. PHL is the worst example, the airport is a dumping ground of corrupt, inept, political cronies.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32726 posts, RR: 72
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2736 times:



Quoting CokePopper (Thread starter):

This should be good for CO,DL and B6

And AA, the second largest airline in the New York area.



a.
User currently offlineCokePopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1179 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2713 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 10):

And AA, the second largest airline in the New York area.

I am sorry who? JK


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2707 times:



Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 8):
It works just fine, though, for the airlines, as they are able to schedule unlimited slots at the most desirable times, when people want to fly most and will pay the biggest premium for tickets.

That's the crux of the matter. Prices on the airline-pax level fluctuate at peak hours, keeping supply and demand balanced. If they didn't, overbooking would be an enormous problem. But prices do not fluctuate on the airline-airport level, thus the airlines overbook the runways. Airports need to be able to charge the airlines a premium landing fee. But as you said. . .

Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 8):

I think the Transportation Department again showed that it is no spine, and that its real constituency is the entrenched airlines, not the flying public.

This is bound to come up again.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSpinner145 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2681 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):
That's the crux of the matter. Prices on the airline-pax level fluctuate at peak hours, keeping supply and demand balanced. If they didn't, overbooking would be an enormous problem. But prices do not fluctuate on the airline-airport level, thus the airlines overbook the runways. Airports need to be able to charge the airlines a premium landing fee. But as you said. . .

The airlines want to have their cake here and eat it too. They want to take advantage of market forces to charge as much as possible for (scheduled) peak hour departures. But then they demand being immune from paying market value for scarce departure slots during these times, or to even acknowledge this scarcity by limiting scheduled departures!


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2650 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
The problem is airlines are the ones making investments at the airports in terminal infrastructure, for instance CO invested $1.3 Billion in expanding their EWR facilities between 1999 and 2003. They would not have made those investments if they could potentially lose their flights every two years, no airline would make any improvements. And airports that depend on cities to improve facilities often are much worse off, look at LAX. The problem with having the airpots control the slots is that the airports in places like PHL and LAX are controlled by the City, and in many cases are exploited by local political machines. PHL is the worst example, the airport is a dumping ground of corrupt, inept, political cronies.

And AA wouldnt have put money into T8. Delta wouldn't have bought PA and been slowly putting money into T2/3/4 and also putting alot of money into LGA.
B6,CO,AA,US and DL would have all really been screwed by this. Some people don't seem to understand that these airlines keep pumping money into NYC by adding flights, adding new people, bring people in and out of NYC plus paying for what they have at the airports. There is a better way to do this. Stripping the airlines that built (B6,US and CO (to a point)) or bought there way(AA and DL) into NYC of there flights is a very very bad idea. Like i said just put a cap on the number of RJ flights. It wont hurt some as bad as others but it will A) open space and B) get more mainline into NYC.



yep.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19555 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2593 times:



Quoting CokePopper (Thread starter):
NEW YORK (AP) — The Transportation Department said Wednesday it will cancel proposal for "slot auctions" at New York City airports, following strong backlash from airlines and industry groups.

And the passengers lose. With over one in three flights out of these airports delayed due to congestion, it shocks me the airlines don't want a solution, either.

Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 8):

I think the Transportation Department again showed that it is no spine, and that its real constituency is the entrenched airlines, not the flying public.

 checkmark 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):

IMHO slots should be owned by the airport authorities and leased on 2 year cycles, with auctions upon renewal, with some percentage of slots held for new entrants. After you have a slot for 2 years, you should be able to pay market rates for it, or you should lose it.

Or have a lottery system. Something better than six flights all scheduled at the exact same time.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

With the current economic conditions and how they affect airlines, I don't think anybody wants to raise the costs of doing business of airlines. I am quite sure the airline bosses put pressure on key Congress and Senate members, and not just of the NY/NJ metro region, to prevent the slot auctions plan.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21562 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2543 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 4):
I would have thought that wake turbulance was the main factor here. If so there is little that "modernizing the nation's air traffic control system with a satellite-based system" will do to reduce those queues.

Wake turbulence is an issue, but there's also the issue of a limited number of departure routings available. Newer technology would increase that number, which would allow for more options should some routes be shut down due to weather. The improvement would be small, though.

What would really make a difference is building another runway. But there is really no place to expand any of the airports (not to mention the inevitable legal challenges). So don't hope for that any time soon.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2539 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
And the passengers lose. With over one in three flights out of these airports delayed due to congestion, it shocks me the airlines don't want a solution, either.

I'm sure that the airlines would desire a solution but I don't think they wanted to accept any "solution". (For example, they did accept caps been placed on movements into Newark and JFK). This proposal seemed to be mainly a money grabbing one.

The FAA proposed removing slots from existing holders and auctioning them to airlines. Reallocating of slots addresses neither airport or airspace capacity, nor conditions of congestion and delays.

The following gives a lot of background info.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports_proposedaction.pdf

Quote:
Auctions of flight operation slots, particularly when coupled with caps on permitted flight operations, would not assist in reducing congestion and delays, but instead only allocate, or reallocate, existing capacity, which has already been reduced by FAA limitations on flight operations at affected airports.
2. Auctions of slots will adversely affect air service to smaller communities that is typically delivered by airlines using planes, which carry fewer passengers than planes which provide service to larger communities. By its nature, such small community service does not produce revenue sufficient to provide a financial incentive to airlines to use slots for such service, in comparison to service to larger communities.
3. Allocation or reallocation of flight operation slots that are not coordinated with the allocation or reallocation of scarce groundside resources through slots would severely constrain the airport proprietor’s management and allocation of those resources, e.g., by impeding the airport proprietor’s ability to enter into lease arrangements that are mutually advantageous to airlines, the airport and the customers they serve.
4. Auctions will also not result in the accommodation of new entrants because such entrants typically are less financially able to successfully participate in an auction process.



User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12443 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2506 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
The problem is airlines are the ones making investments at the airports in terminal infrastructure, for instance CO invested $1.3 Billion in expanding their EWR facilities between 1999 and 2003. They would not have made those investments if they could potentially lose their flights every two years, no airline would make any improvements. And airports that depend on cities to improve facilities often are much worse off, look at LAX. The problem with having the airpots control the slots is that the airports in places like PHL and LAX are controlled by the City, and in many cases are exploited by local political machines. PHL is the worst example, the airport is a dumping ground of corrupt, inept, political cronies.

I see your points, but in rebuttal, airlines aren't the only ones who are investing in the infrastructure. Taxpayers pay for ATC and they pay for runway improvements and they pay part of the terminal upgrades too. And no one said CO would lose the slots, they'd just have to outbid others. Finally, IMHO, a lot of the spending on terminals has been to make the capacity for them to routinely tolerate the huge delays they themselves are creating, and to take more money out of the hands of the captive audience they create by the delays.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 18):
Reallocating of slots addresses neither airport or airspace capacity, nor conditions of congestion and delays.

Sure, but that's a given, and bringing it up just deflects attention from the fact that the current resource allocation scheme (or lack of one) isn't working.

Face it, capacity will always be bounded, and thus some sensible scheme of resource allocation has to be worked out.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 18):
2. Auctions of slots will adversely affect air service to smaller communities that is typically delivered by airlines using planes, which carry fewer passengers than planes which provide service to larger communities. By its nature, such small community service does not produce revenue sufficient to provide a financial incentive to airlines to use slots for such service, in comparison to service to larger communities.

If the large airports can do without feed from smaller airports, then so be it. That's how capitalism works. Personally, I doubt they can do without the feed, and if it's really true, then alternates such as rail transport to the hub airports or growth of some of the non-hub airports will naturally develop. That too is capitalism.

Or, as mentioned earlier, have some slots reserved for smaller airplanes.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 18):
3. Allocation or reallocation of flight operation slots that are not coordinated with the allocation or reallocation of scarce groundside resources through slots would severely constrain the airport proprietor’s management and allocation of those resources, e.g., by impeding the airport proprietor’s ability to enter into lease arrangements that are mutually advantageous to airlines, the airport and the customers they serve.

As STT757 has already mentioned, that's probably the best argument, but it can be rebutted. Maybe a longer lease period, and not having all the leases coming due at the same time would help address this.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 18):
4. Auctions will also not result in the accommodation of new entrants because such entrants typically are less financially able to successfully participate in an auction process.

Some percentage could be reserved for new entrants.

All in all, the article from the PANYNJ is of course written by people who do not want to see the status quo changed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSpinner145 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2499 times:



Quoting EI564 (Reply 18):
Quote:
Auctions of flight operation slots, particularly when coupled with caps on permitted flight operations, would not assist in reducing congestion and delays, but instead only allocate, or reallocate, existing capacity, which has already been reduced by FAA limitations on flight operations at affected airports.
2. Auctions of slots will adversely affect air service to smaller communities that is typically delivered by airlines using planes, which carry fewer passengers than planes which provide service to larger communities. By its nature, such small community service does not produce revenue sufficient to provide a financial incentive to airlines to use slots for such service, in comparison to service to larger communities.
3. Allocation or reallocation of flight operation slots that are not coordinated with the allocation or reallocation of scarce groundside resources through slots would severely constrain the airport proprietor’s management and allocation of those resources, e.g., by impeding the airport proprietor’s ability to enter into lease arrangements that are mutually advantageous to airlines, the airport and the customers they serve.
4. Auctions will also not result in the accommodation of new entrants because such entrants typically are less financially able to successfully participate in an auction process.

It is interesting, but it's way off. My impression is that the NY Port Authority is, in the end, little piqued that they weren't getting any windfall from these auctions. If they were getting a good chunk of the revenue I bet they might change their tune. As to their points:

1) They have missed (or avoided) the point. Slot restrictions are in place and Port Authority proposes no alternative to how these slots should be allocated (although it would be in a way that lines their pockets, I'm sure  dollarsign  ).
2) Yeah, that's called efficient allocation of resources. During the busiest hours, the planes with 300+ passengers would take off, the 40 seat puddlejumpers might settle for a less favorable takeoff time. I don't see the problem.
3) Can anybody else decipher what they're trying to say here?  Confused
4) Balderdash. A transparent auction system would encourage new entrants, so long as they are willing to pay a market price for those slots. It's the current, highly opaque system of slots being awarded on the basis of an airline's history and their relationship with the airport authority that discourages competition.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12443 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2477 times:



Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 20):
My impression is that the NY Port Authority is, in the end, little piqued that they weren't getting any windfall from these auctions. If they were getting a good chunk of the revenue I bet they might change their tune.

Good point. Maybe as a part of a grand compromise, airports should be given some kickbacks, just to get them to buy into the new system. I'm not sure why the Feds should keep all the money.

Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 20):
It's the current, highly opaque system of slots being awarded on the basis of an airline's history and their relationship with the airport authority that discourages competition.

Another very good point.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

I thought that the current resource allocation system doesn't work because there are too many flights operating at the peak hours? This proposal doesn't solve that issue.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
Face it, capacity will always be bounded, and thus some sensible scheme of resource allocation has to be worked out.

Admittedly, my main problem with the proposal was that FAA seemed to suggest that it would reduce congestion. Clearly it wouldn't do that. I know its too much to expect governments to be transparent but it makes it harder to accept their arguments when they aren't.

At the same time, it does sound strange to me that the FAA can simply take slots from airlines and make money selling them. That's not capitalism.

Auctioning newly created slots is a whole different question.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
All in all, the article from the PANYNJ is of course written by people who do not want to see the status quo changed.

Fair point. I couldn't quickly find an unbiased summary of events.

Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 20):
Port Authority proposes no alternative to how these slots should be allocated

Presumably because they think the current method is ok or at least, better than the method proposed? Slot allocation is quite easy these days. You simply get all the slots you operated last year.

Quoting Spinner145 (Reply 20):
It's the current, highly opaque system of slots being awarded on the basis of an airline's history and their relationship with the airport authority that discourages competition.

If that is true, that would be a problem.


User currently offlineCorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

I applaud Ray LaHood for doing this because not only were slot auctions a bad and stupid idea, but there would have been no benefit to the flying public. I don’t see how this would have reduced congestion since the number of slots would have remained the same. The only change would have been the ticket price, which would have gone up because who do you think the airlines will pass the increased cost of doing business to? The flying public.

The way the Bush Administration tried to ram this through was very amateurish. It seemed like they were determined to get their way no matter what and refused to do more research or consider other alternatives (the PA had a task force that came up with about a hundred alternatives to alleviate congestion, but the DOT under Mary Peters refused to even consider). Let’s not forget that for many years, the DOT said they didn’t have the right to take away landing rights already used by the airlines. It’s only under Mary Peters that they changed their tune and they were stopped in the courts.

I’m not saying the status quo is ideal, but slot auctions and the congestion pricing proposal would have been worse.

Maybe this new administration will be more open-minded coming up with different ideas.

So, to those saying that the passengers have lost by this decision, please tell me how? As I mentioned in the beginning, the number of slots (i.e. congestion) would have stayed exactly the same even if this went through. How would I have benefited as a flyer if the congestion would have been exactly the same and I’d be paying more for it? And tell me how slot auctions is “capitalism’ when the government is confiscating landing rights already used by the airlines? I know there are opposing viewpoints on who owns the rights to the slots, but that’s for the courts to decide.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Good point. Maybe as a part of a grand compromise, airports should be given some kickbacks, just to get them to buy into the new system. I'm not sure why the Feds should keep all the money.

Actually, a lot of that money would have gone to Power Auctions, LLC., who would have administered the auction. This company was founded by two economists – the only two economics who supported this idea to begin with.


User currently offlineEMB170 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2289 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
And the passengers lose. With over one in three flights out of these airports delayed due to congestion, it shocks me the airlines don't want a solution, either.

The passengers still lose if the airlines' slots are forcibly taken away. Losing choices at the single largest air market on Earth? Not to sound like an industry mouthpiece, but let's keep in mind the amount of money AA, B6, CO, DL and US not only bring in *to* greater NYC, but actually generate in and of themselves for NYC in terms of the jobs they create, taxes and fees they pay, etc. While it's not nice to have to suggest that PANYNJ exercise eminent domain and add runways, it may be a better choice, in this case.



Can passenger jets fly as fast as my feet do? Let's find out...
25 Mir : Still, if they had to pay more to keep their slots after having already spent money on airport improvements, there would be little incentive to spend
26 DocLightning : The problem is that it would be essentially impossible to build enough runways to relieve congestion at these airports. NYC is one of the largest O&D
27 Slider : And how does the flying public win with auctions? And how does that reduce congestion?
28 Revelation : Indeed, that's also how capitalism works. If the resource is scarce you pay more to utilize it. If it gets too expensive, alternatives emerge and the
29 Corinthians : The problem with this is that it's not capitalism. You have full government involvement where they are illegally procuring private property and then
30 Revelation : To me, the fact that airlines own slots is an accident of history that needs correction. False premise. The government IS involved in capitalism. The
31 STT757 : Keep in mind, SWF is far from being an LCC alternative airport such as MDW, OAK, LGB, BWI, HOU, FLL, DAL etc.. Those airports are competitive with th
32 SPREE34 : How so? It can't, meaningfully. There isn't enough concrete. These "taxpayer properties" that the evil airlines have improved and maintained with evi
33 Revelation : No one would, if we keep expanding LGA, EWR and JFK at huge cost to the taxpayers, passengers and the environment, but given those things probably wo
34 Corinthians : Well, with all due respect, this is something that's reality now and we're going to have to deal with. If you want the government involved and taking
35 STT757 : Unfortunately the PA purchased the property just as it seemed air travel was again booming, however now that the economy has tanked and air travel at
36 Revelation : If prices go up, it won't be economical to use all the slots. In the limit, as price goes up, alternatives become more viable. Right now the system w
37 Daviation : You can argue the NYC air traffic situation till the cows come home, but LGA is never going away. It's not even worth discussing; it will never happen
38 Post contains links STT757 : I've spent plenty of time up there over the years too, my Aunt owned a home in Woodstock Ulster County and I would spend time up there. I also went t
39 Daviation : Thanks for the info, STT757. I knew that they were beginning work on the tunnel, but 2017 is a long way off, and it'll probably be much later than tha
40 Ikramerica : Should read "illegal slot auctions" because that's what they were. Had nothing to do with congestion, and everything to do with "fairness," the same
41 SESGDL : No they aren't, they are the third largest, B6 overtook them last year. This is a good decision by the DOT. Hopefully, however, airlines will support
42 Ikramerica : If the DOT wants to reduce congestion, they can continue to cut slots or increase the average aircraft size requirement. But taking away slots from o
43 Revelation : So how could they cut slots in a legal way? It'd still be seizing private property in many people's minds.
44 Ikramerica : It's not the same thing. Reducing slots can be argued for the good of all, if the goal is to increase safety and/or reduce congestion. Fair compensat
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...
DOT Considers JFK Slot Auction, New Caps LGA & EWR posted Sun Dec 9 2007 08:31:41 by LAXintl
FAA Chief Counsel Stops Slot Auction posted Thu Aug 28 2008 16:42:32 by WorldTraveler
DOJ Recommends Slot Auction @ORD posted Tue Aug 1 2006 15:19:22 by Lowecur
DOT Gives DCA Slot To DL For DCA-SLC posted Tue Dec 3 2002 15:54:48 by ONT 737
NYC Area Airport Slots Up For Auction. posted Fri May 16 2008 13:00:01 by Nuggetsyl
DOT Grants US Airways Slot Exemptions For DCA-SRQ posted Tue Jun 13 2006 00:27:04 by A330323X
Slot Allocation For NYC posted Sat Nov 25 2000 17:10:48 by Jonnyboy
What Happend To MX GDL-NYC? posted Tue Apr 28 2009 17:56:26 by SKYYBLUE
BA NYC Schedules posted Sat Apr 25 2009 10:09:34 by Planemad
Scheduled Heli Services In NYC - Which "airlines"? posted Fri Apr 24 2009 09:52:02 by Mozart