Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possible Effect Of No More Perimeter Rule At LGA  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

What new service might we see from LGA if the perimeter rule disappears? Would United or American (or others) move some of their transcon flights, particularly LAX and SFO, from JFK to LGA?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5836 times:

Why would the perimeter rule disappear?

User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5781 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
What new service might we see from LGA if the perimeter rule disappears? Would United or American (or others) move some of their transcon flights, particularly LAX and SFO, from JFK to LGA?

How many flights a day to Denver? Now add that to LAX, SLC, SFO, SEA. Reduce flights to ORD, ATL, DFW etc as the airlines no longer have to funnel pax through their hubs to get them beyond the perimeter rule.

Probably 1-2 flights a day to places live Vegas, Phoenix and San Diego.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 1):
Why would the perimeter rule disappear?

Because its archaic and actually contributes to congestion at LGA by compressing airline schedules.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6101 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5689 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
Would United or American (or others) move some of their transcon flights, particularly LAX and SFO, from JFK to LGA?

If the perimeter rule went away I would bet money that UA would move PS to LGA and just keep a token (UAX flights to IAD probably) presence at JFK.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20244 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5672 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 2):

Because its archaic and actually contributes to congestion at LGA by compressing airline schedules.

Explain that to me. Not contesting, just not familiar with it.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5641 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Explain that to me. Not contesting, just not familiar with it.

If you put a perimeter limit on an airport it forces carriers to funnel demand through close in hubs. Shorter haul flights typically use smaller aircraft. To meet the demand, you have more frequencies. Added frequencies result in added congestion.

They installed the rule because they beleived carriers would flock to LGA because it was downtown. With DCA they did it to drive service to what was basically a failing airport at IAD. Now there's so much demand in both markets that the rules are moot.


User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5584 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
If you put a perimeter limit on an airport it forces carriers to funnel demand through close in hubs. Shorter haul flights typically use smaller aircraft. To meet the demand, you have more frequencies. Added frequencies result in added congestion.

I understand this argument, but it seems that the fact that LGA is slot-controlled makes this moot. There would still be a finite number of take-offs and landings permitted, so carriers would be forced to decide whether to fly to ATL/ORD/DFW instead of LAX/SFO/SEA and might end up flying larger aircraft to capture demand to the additional cities without increasing the number of flights. Without slot restrictions, I think most carriers would try to maintain the frequency to the current batch of cities within the perimeter but fly them with smaller aircraft while adding flights to cities outside the perimeter, resulting in more total flights. Again, though, with slots, I don't see how it would change. Am I missing something?


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 6):
I understand this argument, but it seems that the fact that LGA is slot-controlled makes this moot.

The slot controls are a direct result of high frequency flights in small aircraft.

The average number of seats per flight out of LGA is 92. From DCA its 93. These should be at least at 110-120 if not closer to 130.

[Edited 2009-07-28 11:48:57]

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5371 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 2):
Because its archaic and actually contributes to congestion at LGA by compressing airline schedules.



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
If you put a perimeter limit on an airport it forces carriers to funnel demand through close in hubs. Shorter haul flights typically use smaller aircraft. To meet the demand, you have more frequencies. Added frequencies result in added congestion.

That would only be true if there was no JFK airport. Since JFK exists and nonstop options exist, I'd say your claim that the perimeter rule actually makes LGA busier is not correct. LGA doesnt carry much traffic to places beyond the perimeter that could support nonstop service.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5238 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 7):
The slot controls are a direct result of high frequency flights in small aircraft.

I would go back to my old idea of removing the perimeter rule, but change the slot rules to require 2 slots for an aircraft under a certain number of seats, say 90. After all, which brings more value to the airport, a 757 to LAX or a CR2 to PWM? Both take up the same resources in terms of congestion.

But, if the perimeter rule were removed, I bet that BA would bring a 767 from LHR and maybe shift the LCY A318 service from JFK.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5201 times:

I didn't mean for this thread to become about the pluses and minuses of the perimeter rule/slots, etc, but rather to discuss what routes might be shifted from JFK to LGA in the event of the removal of the perimeter rule...

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5104 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
Shorter haul flights typically use smaller aircraft. To meet the demand, you have more frequencies. Added frequencies result in added congestion.

There are fewer than twenty flights between LGA and large hubs (FAA definition) that use aircraft smaller than 120 seats.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
After all, which brings more value to the airport, a 757 to LAX or a CR2 to PWM? Both take up the same resources in terms of congestion.

Given the condition of the main terminal at LGA, I think I'd rather have the CR2 to PWM...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
But, if the perimeter rule were removed, I bet that BA would bring a 767 from LHR and maybe shift the LCY A318 service from JFK.

The lack of FIS facilities would be a problem for the LHR flight (though the LCY flight is going to clear at SNN, so in principle BA could move it).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5050 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 2):
How many flights a day to Denver?

Five on United and two on Frontier.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
The lack of FIS facilities would be a problem for the LHR flight (though the LCY flight is going to clear at SNN, so in principle BA could move it).

As you pointed out, the LCY flight is going to clear immigration and customs at SNN so the lack of FIS facilities at LGA won't be an issue. It's not going to be using the FIS facilities at JFK.

All that is needed is a CBP presence which LGA already has. That's why LGA can get precleared flights from Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Aruba.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5029 times:



Quoting BA (Reply 12):
As you pointed out, the LCY flight is going to clear immigration and customs at SNN so the lack of FIS facilities at LGA won't be an issue. It's not going to be using the FIS facilities at JFK.

 checkmark 

OTOH, though, the fact that BA will have to keep the vast majority of its ops at JFK might militate against having that single flight at LGA (I suppose the same argument could be made for LCY, though).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4984 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
OTOH, though, the fact that BA will have to keep the vast majority of its ops at JFK might militate against having that single flight at LGA (I suppose the same argument could be made for LCY, though).

True, BA would have to determine if the convenience of LGA over JFK would bring a sufficient increase in revenue to exceed the added expense of setting up operations at LGA.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8912 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

One thing to consider is the role of the Congress-critters. There are a lot of senators from states that could lose out on some service to LGA should the perimeter rule go away: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (ACK service...), Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York (all those upstate cities), Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Florida, Nebraska, etc. all could lose service to west coast destinations. I wouldn't be shocked if a limited of beyond slots (a la DCA) came about, but I'm sure the Congress critters don't want to hear it from their constituents that their daily CRJ to LGA is going away so that the folks using LAX-JFK can get into midtown 10 minutes sooner.

I'd also think DL/AA might go against this proposal a bit. It'd be a huge benefit to Star - US and UA would be able to effectively pull out of IAD (save maybe some UAX/USX puddlejumpers to IAD/CLT), but US would definitely pull back from some smaller cities to fly to PHX/LAS, and I'm sure UA would try to get enough slots/gates to get SFO/LAX moved over to LGA. Given DL/AA having the dual hub type operation at JFK/LGA, I'm sure they wouldn't bail on the key JFK routes, which would give UA/US an advantage.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5557 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4940 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
I didn't mean for this thread to become about the pluses and minuses of the perimeter rule/slots, etc, but rather to discuss what routes might be shifted from JFK to LGA in the event of the removal of the perimeter rule...

Too late RJ', looks like this thread is already turning into a rehash of the thread from January (when the bill abolishing both the DCA and the LGA perimeters was introduced by McCain):
McCain Wants To Open Up DCA/LGA To The West Coast (by Juventus Jan 9 2009 in Civil Aviation)


I wonder what the status is of the January bill (and the later one -- May or June I think? -- that may have only been about DCA?) If either of the bills actually does pass, it will be interesting to see what effects the current economy and airline LF issues have on the airline's decisions to move long-haul flights between airports...

bb


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
There are fewer than twenty flights between LGA and large hubs (FAA definition) that use aircraft smaller than 120 seats.

1. I didn't say large hubs (FAA) I said airline hubs. There a 150 such flights in aircraft per day with fewer than 120 seats, of these flights the actual average is about 70 seats per flight.
2. The average seating capacity of all airlines at LGA is 23% lower than that of airports that provide similar capacity - and about 4% below the national average of all airports in the US with scheduled service and it takes a heck of a lot of small markets with RJs and Props to bring that down.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 8):
That would only be true if there was no JFK airport. Since JFK exists and nonstop options exist, I'd say your claim that the perimeter rule actually makes LGA busier is not correct. LGA doesnt carry much traffic to places beyond the perimeter that could support nonstop service.

None to a free and open LAX, SLC, SFO, SAN, PHX, LAS, SEA? That's easily a couple thousand passengers a day that are presently going through hubs that are within the perimeter.

[Edited 2009-07-28 21:21:22]

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4546 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 17):
I didn't say large hubs (FAA) I said airline hubs.

I don't know where you are getting 150 daily flights from. Adding FAA medium hubs that airlines consider hubs adds CLE (about 12 daily flights, mostly on 50-seaters), STL (all S80s), and MEM (all Airbii). We're still at 30-ish flights to three airports (IAD, PHL, CLE).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4340 times:



Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 15):
One thing to consider is the role of the Congress-critters.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Perimeter rule at LGA is not federally-mandated, but rather a local (PANYNJ) rule.

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 15):
US and UA would be able to effectively pull out of IAD

I assume you meant JFK here, not IAD. And I'm not so sure. LGA is clearly the preferred airport for business travellers, but I doubt AA would move its dedicated 762 fleet to LGA, and United has a nice little operation at JFK.


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4320 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 17):
None to a free and open LAX, SLC, SFO, SAN, PHX, LAS, SEA? That's easily a couple thousand passengers a day that are presently going through hubs that are within the perimeter.

Wrong!!!! Go check DOT data. There are not 1000s per day going between LGA and the cities you mentioned. You'd be surprised how small the LGA-LAX/SFO market is. LGA-SLC/SAN is probably less than 25 PDEW.

95% of pax in NYC would rather go nonstop from JFK/EWR than take a connection via LGA even if the live CLOSER to LGA.


Opening up LGA's perimeter rule would make LGA marginally more busy, would not reduce flights to hubs within the perimeter, and would have 0 impact on JFK.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4133 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 20):
Wrong!!!! Go check DOT data. There are not 1000s per day going between LGA and the cities you mentioned. You'd be surprised how small the LGA-LAX/SFO market is. LGA-SLC/SAN is probably less than 25 PDEW.

95% of pax in NYC would rather go nonstop from JFK/EWR than take a connection via LGA even if the live CLOSER to LGA.


Opening up LGA's perimeter rule would make LGA marginally more busy, would not reduce flights to hubs within the perimeter, and would have 0 impact on JFK.

I'm going to save this link in my favorites for a rainy uncongested LGA day.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4101 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 20):
95% of pax in NYC would rather go nonstop from JFK/EWR than take a connection via LGA even if the live CLOSER to LGA.

But would they still prefer that if they could get a non-stop from LGA?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4000 times:

The original post was how opening up the perimeter rule would reduce congestion at LGA, which is of course nonsense. It totally ignores spill and recapture and is the work of someone who isnt very dynamic thinking. Many connect points beyond SLC, PHX, SFO, LAX etc can already be reached from LGA via DEN, DFW.

SLC and PHX would just fill up like they do from DCA ( I do think that PHX/SLC would do well), but LAX and SFO would have a very hard time competing with JFK. Especially for AA would doesnt have a premium 757 like UA does.

But the original post that speculated that flying beyond the perimeter would result in dozens of RJ and narrowbody cancellations and thus make LGA less congested is completely wrong.

I never said that SLC and PHX wouldnt do well. What I said is that there would be no reduction in congestion and no cancellation of flights to hubs within the perimeter. Which again is silly babble.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 23):
But the original post that speculated that flying beyond the perimeter would result in dozens of RJ and narrowbody cancellations and thus make LGA less congested is completely wrong.

Well, you're wrong.

It is the perimeter rule that drives down the average seating capacity at LGA. It does the same thing to DCA. JFK/LGA and EWR represent a system of airports. They are complementing facilities, try to wrap your head around that. As for why the seats are driven down, if you can't operate beyond a certain range and you reach the limit on cycles between LGA and the hubs that can be run effectively. The only left to do is stick a bunch of RJ's in to fill sub markets for the sake of running seats that provides a barrier for entry of new carriers.

Like I said, I'm saving this thread for a rainy non-congested day at LGA when the perimneter rule has been removed.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 23):
LAX and SFO would have a very hard time competing with JFK.

Do you expect anyone to take this comment seriously?

[Edited 2009-08-03 15:40:35]

25 STT757 : It's federally Mandated, the last time the Feds were toying with the idea of dropping the perimeter rule the Port Authority threatened to reject the
26 Josh32121 : That's a very telling statistic (and I think one of the most glaring inefficiencies in today's air travel schedules). Do you have any idea what that
27 DeltaL1011man : IMO UAX to ORD and IAD. If the E75 can make JFK-DEN then I'd say 1-2x daily E75 to DEN. Outside of that I agree SFO/LAX moved to LGA.....If they can
28 Spacecadet : This is not true. They installed the rule to promote JFK and EWR, which were both languishing at the time. The PA wanted those two airports to be the
29 PPVRA : If you look at the currest system the way it is, I think MSNDC9 has a good point about the utilization rates. Though I'm not sure I agree with the id
30 Timz : Circa 1984? Or when? It was the Port Authority's idea, but they had to get FAA or DOT or somebody to make a rule to enforce it? If somebody had wante
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...
No More Removing Shoes At Airport In The Future? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 00:09:58 by Elite
Bill Proposed To Loosen Perimeter Rule At DCA posted Fri Mar 14 2008 12:35:09 by D L X
No More Mainline Service At FWA? posted Tue Jan 17 2006 02:45:16 by ZChannel
No More Paper Schedules At WN posted Tue Dec 7 2004 00:47:49 by LegendDC9
No More Construction Fee At Chinese Airports? posted Sun Nov 21 2004 10:10:39 by Scandinavian
No More CRJ-200's At DFW? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 07:10:09 by SonOfACaptain
New Perimeter Fence At LGA posted Wed Sep 24 2003 23:45:57 by Bigphilnyc
No More Cockpit Visits At Cathay. posted Tue Sep 18 2001 12:48:15 by Cx flyboy
No More Pax 747s At Phx? posted Mon Mar 12 2001 02:08:01 by Jtb106
No More Alliance Air At London Heathrow posted Sat Dec 23 2000 18:07:43 by LGW