Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Next Gen ATC Will Not Solve Lack Of Runways  
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6072 posts, RR: 34
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9111 times:

Here is a link to an article that highlights how mainly a lack of pavement at airports (in particular the NYC area) is the real problem and not the lack of Next Gen ATC that is currently being debated on Capitol Hill. Certainly Next Gen ATC will help but it is not the solution. The greatest benefits from Next Gen will be in shorter flights and fuel savings as airliners will be able to fly optimal flight profiles. But as Herb once wrote in an AW&ST editorial, 50 miles of pavement (runways) would solve our delay/congestion problems. Highlights from the article...


"In 2007, nearly three-quarters of all delays in the U.S. could be traced to a problem in New York, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The logjam has received a lot of attention over the past two years, with mixed results."


"On busy days, the lines of planes landing at LaGuardia Airport can still stretch unbroken in the sky for 40 miles, said Dean Iacopelli, an air traffic controller and union representative at the facility that handles approaches to New York.

"All we can do is take them and space them out as close as FAA rules allow," he said. "It's not like you can put more aircraft in there. That's it. We're just maxed out."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...port-quagmire,0,3406107,full.story


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9016 times:

What would help:

Capping the number of flights in/out that can be done in "normal" circumstances.

More runways w/o question would be nice, but wont' happen. Don't even bother wondering.

Also (in NYC esp), a high speed train between airports, so you could actually change between them.

Another helpful thing in NY: limit the RJs to certain hours..........they use the same amount of space as other flights, but carry fewer pax.

But, as we all know, they will be debating Next Gen ATC when ULTRA FAST ATC is being planned.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9014 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Thread starter):
Here is a link to an article that highlights how mainly a lack of pavement at airports (in particular the NYC area) is the real problem and not the lack of Next Gen ATC that is currently being debated on Capitol Hill.

The article doesn't say much of anything about NextGen, beyond it being expensive and slow to implement. Your analysis may be true, but it's not supported by the article. In any case, I'm not sure that it is true; NextGen could allow lower separation distances and better coordination of congested airspace, and it could help avoid delays causing snowballing.

In any case, where at EWR/LGA/JFK are you going to come up with another runway?


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6072 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8953 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 2):
The article doesn't say much of anything about NextGen, beyond it being expensive and slow to implement.

It also says that it would help. But more to the point, ATA has been drumming non stop it seems that Next Gen is the solution... and it isn't.

Quoting Tharanga (Reply 2):
NextGen could allow lower separation distances and better coordination of congested airspace, and it could help avoid delays causing snowballing.

No it wouldn't. FAA minimum separation distances are based on wake turbulence. Until that changes you can't improve on the 40 mile conga line on final.

Quoting Tharanga (Reply 2):
In any case, where at EWR/LGA/JFK are you going to come up with another runway?

You could be done with certain conditions... but it just would be bloody expensive and disruptive. An interesting concept that was looked at in a research study was displacing the touchdown point depending on aircraft weight so that ATC could jam in more aircraft into the "conga line" without having to worry about wake turbulence. The same logic would apply for takeoffs.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8897 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 3):
No it wouldn't. FAA minimum separation distances are based on wake turbulence. Until that changes you can't improve on the 40 mile conga line on final.

And the FAA has admitted that the wake separation standards are extremely conservative and as part of NextGen will likely be reduced. Of course, how long it takes the FAA to figure out the new standards is anyones guess.

NextGen won't solve everything and I don't know anyone who believes it will. It's obvious that more runways are needed in places like NYC. However, since there is almost no chance new runways will ever get built, other solutions must be found.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8905 times:

IMHO, the lack of concrete being blamed for delays is at times overrated, the inability to NOT think well outside the box certainly is!!

Tighter separation criteria using performance based navigation with best equipped best served will certainly increase airspace capacity. By having arrival and departure route separation reduced laterally using something less than 3 or 5 NM as well as parallel routes with less separation gives more access to the sky.

Being able to use curved approaches at airports with airspace restrictions such as EWR, LGA, TEB, JFK to name a few, will certainly increase capacity by using technology that already exists on the flight deck today.

Using tighter separation minima with performance based nav will allow aircraft to use some airports (i.e., SFO)with existing restrictions for dual/trip arrivals much more efficiently for starters. Eliminating the waste of airspace for departures which must diverge courses by 15 degrees in a RADAR environment and use much less divergence gets those airplanes in the air much sooner.

Changing the ancient runway separation for landing especially will allow aircraft to follow more closely on final when wake turbulence separation isn't an issue.

Quoting Tharanga (Reply 2):
NextGen could allow lower separation distances and better coordination of congested airspace, and it could help avoid delays causing snowballing.

  

[Edited 2009-11-23 14:00:48]


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8898 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 3):
You could be done with certain conditions... but it just would be bloody expensive and disruptive.

Well, if you're going to say that lack of runways is the real problem, you should also mention that there isn't a very realistic way of building more. Otherwise, the reader would not know it would be 'expensive and disruptive', and conclude somebody is missing an obvious fix.

As it is, an extra runway is really just a dream, and less realistic than a reduction in slots - which admittedly would still be difficult to implement (as discussed a recent thread).

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 3):
No it wouldn't. FAA minimum separation distances are based on wake turbulence. Until that changes you can't improve on the 40 mile conga line on final.

couldn't the conga line be less of a line? I thought the part of the point was to be able to make more effective use of the airspace.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8864 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Thread starter):
The greatest benefits from Next Gen will be in shorter flights and fuel savings as airliners will be able to fly optimal flight profiles. But as Herb once wrote in an AW&ST editorial, 50 miles of pavement (runways) would solve our delay/congestion problems. Highlights from the article...

Oye... You and Herb.

1. No kidding on the benfit of NextGen if the FAA delivers... Big if.
2. Since Herb said what he did, most of that 50 miles of runway has been built or is being built.
3. What can be built will be completed by 2020.
4. The remaining lengths will never be ever built.
5. Other solutions will be required.

Quoting Davescj (Reply 1):
Another helpful thing in NY: limit the RJs to certain hours..........they use the same amount of space as other flights, but carry fewer pax.

Rather moot at this point considering most of those low RJs are economically and on the chopping block in the next 5 years.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 3):
No it wouldn't. FAA minimum separation distances are based on wake turbulence. Until that changes you can't improve on the 40 mile conga line on final.

1. Runway separation reduces from 5,000-feet to 2,500-feet for independent ops in IFR under NextGen performance based operations.
2. Runway separation of 1,200-feet is sufficient for independent operations accounting for wake turbulence in VFR under NextGen performance based operations.
2. Using variable glidepath geometry for different approach categories will increase the handling rate for the vast majority of the runways in the US. Smaller aircraft will be able to use a 3.6 GPA and larger will remain at 3.0 GPA placing the smaller aircraft above the heavy therby avoiding the wake turbulence. There are few exceptions where this will not be possible.

Same story, different cover. Let it go. There is not more room for additional concrete.

[Edited 2009-11-23 14:16:07]

[Edited 2009-11-23 14:18:08]

User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8792 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 5):
MHO, the lack of concrete being blamed for delays is at times overrated, the inability to NOT think well outside the box certainly is!!

Tighter separation criteria using performance based navigation with best equipped best served will certainly increase airspace capacity. By having arrival and departure route separation reduced laterally using something less than 3 or 5 NM as well as parallel routes with less separation gives more access to the sky.

Being able to use curved approaches at airports with airspace restrictions such as EWR, LGA, TEB, JFK to name a few, will certainly increase capacity by using technology that already exists on the flight deck today.

Using tighter separation minima with performance based nav will allow aircraft to use some airports (i.e., SFO)with existing restrictions for dual/trip arrivals much more efficiently for starters. Eliminating the waste of airspace for departures which must diverge courses by 15 degrees in a RADAR environment and use much less divergence gets those airplanes in the air much sooner.

Changing the ancient runway separation for landing especially will allow aircraft to follow more closely on final when wake turbulence separation isn't an issue.

What you are saying is correct, but none of it will give you the benefits of building a single new runway. ATC at congested airports like JFK, EWR and LGA are very efficient. I am sure they often go below 3 Nm on final to cram in as many planes as they can (except when wake turbulence separation is necessary, of course).

One thing is sure. 3nm is overated. Separation on final should be based on time, not distance. This will enable ATC during strong headwind days on final, to go down to 2nm spacing, since that could equate to 3nm in terms of time (as an example).

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2009-11-23 14:32:16 by thenoflyzone]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8774 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 6):
you should also mention that there isn't a very realistic way of building more



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 7):
Same story, different cover. Let it go. There is not more room for additional concrete.

Why so pessimistic. Sure there is room! NYC needs an island airport, much like KIX, HKG and NGO.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5383 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8762 times:

Even if you could land more planes, the wait times for passengers don't improve unless more gates and taxiways are created.

Without that, even if you land more planes, you merely change the lineup from the air to the ground.

For the passenger, being stuck on the ground isn't any more pleasant than being stuck in the air.



What the...?
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8742 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 10):
Even if you could land more planes, the wait times for passengers don't improve unless more gates and taxiways are created.

Without that, even if you land more planes, you merely change the lineup from the air to the ground.

For the passenger, being stuck on the ground isn't any more pleasant than being stuck in the air.

Answer: read reply 9

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8710 times:

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 8):
I am sure they often go below 3 Nm on final to cram in as many planes as they can (except when wake turbulence separation is necessary, of course).

Hate to say it, but unless visual approaches are being flown or they can go down to 2.5 NM on final with the reduced separation on final inside 10 NM from the runway, the new safety offices and tools which measure separation constantly won't allow for the cram them in concept any more.

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 8):
but none of it will give you the benefits of building a single new runway.

I wouldn't say none of it will give you the benefits as there are airports today which don't use all the runways to the maximum efficiency due mostly to separation standards between parallel runways for approaches. SFO could eliminate so many delays if they could land on the 28's all the time, regardless of low ceilings or visibility! Other airports have runways they just simply can't get to because of other airports, let the criteria out of the bag to use curved approaches that deconflict these airports.

Imagine if you were able to land simultaneously at ATL on 26L/R and 27L/R during heavy arrival periods, the lack of concrete will end up being ramp space not runways.

Take SFO and allow simultaneous landings in all weather conditions on both the 28's, or

[Edited 2009-11-23 14:51:50]


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8704 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
the new safety offices and tools which measure separation constantly won't allow for the cram them in concept any more.

Dont know how it works down in the States, but up here in Canada, those tools you speak of are all tuned off in the TRACON/Terminal environment ! I know first hand  Big grin

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8680 times:



Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 13):
Dont know how it works down in the States, but up here in Canada, those tools you speak of are all tuned off in the TRACON/Terminal environment

Well in States, the tools in the terminal are just starting to showing up unlike in the center world where they've existed for about 100 years, much like the separation standards!!  Smile

"Big Brother" is watching regardless from their desks.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8673 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 7):
Rather moot at this point considering most of those low RJs are economically and on the chopping block in the next 5 years.

it's not just RJs, you could argue the same for 737s versus larger planes. It's all just a sliding scale. Dave's point still stands.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8664 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
"Big Brother" is watching regardless from their desks.

Up here, "Big Brother" is just a pencil pusher. They don't watch anything until a separation loss is reported. As for the unit supervisors, they are the ones pushing the controllers to cram them in.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2009-11-23 15:00:51 by thenoflyzone]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8641 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
"Big Brother" is watching regardless from their desks.

Yea, they barely made it through the training programs of places like SYR and ALB, washed out at the ORD's and PHL's of the world and are now exacting their revenge.  stirthepot 



"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5383 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8600 times:



Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 11):

Cramming another airport into the NY area isn't the answer. The logistics of 3 are already a nightmare. No system could solve that mess.

Reasonable schedules would probably make the biggest difference in the bottle necks but since everybody wants the prime slots, that's unlikely to happen.



What the...?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19278 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8509 times:



Quoting Davescj (Reply 1):

Another helpful thing in NY: limit the RJs to certain hours..........they use the same amount of space as other flights, but carry fewer pax.

I've got a better one. Mandate that, say, 70% of passengers at the NYC airports must be O&D. Airlines can route connecting traffic through less congested hubs.

The passengers won't notice the difference. They'll just connect in ATL instead of JFK on their way from MAD to STL.

Less congested airports like DTW, CLE, PHL, etc. should dominate the connecting passenger market. JFK/EWR/LGA should be for people going to and from NYC, the largest single air market in North America.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8479 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
I've got a better one. Mandate that, say, 70% of passengers at the NYC airports must be O&D. Airlines can route connecting traffic through less congested hubs.

Except for the fact that a particular passenger may desire to fly a particular airline to a destination in Europe or Asia and can't connect through another HUB, nor desire spend the night in NYC to become an O&D passenger.  indifferent 



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16795 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8479 times:



Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 9):
Sure there is room! NYC needs an island airport, much like KIX, HKG and NGO.

Where exactly would this island airport be located, and how would it be accessed?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8457 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
I've got a better one. Mandate that, say, 70% of passengers at the NYC airports must be O&D. Airlines can route connecting traffic through less congested hubs.

That seems difficult to implement, and a more onerous form of regulation than others. Just have fewer slots, that's all. The airlines can sort out what they want to do with those slots.

This has, of course, been thought about, but the airlines always fight it.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 21):

Where exactly would this island airport be located, and how would it be accessed?

and then, how much would it cost, and who's going to pay for it?


Remember the idea that closing LGA would actually improve traffic flow? The idea was just an off-hand thought from a pilot, so it's probably not worth anything, but I'll mention it in passing.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ir-congestion-shut-down-laguardia/


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8456 times:

Before runway 16L/34R was built at SYD, it was proposed (but not implemented) to auction off slots to the highest bidder. The airlines were strongly opposed to this, mostly because it meant that they couldn't blame ATC for delays. So why not implement such a system? Also, shouldn't there be larger planes coming in to such busy airports?

User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8447 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 23):
So why not implement such a system?

exact same thing happened here. the government proposed it; the airlines screamed and complained, and prepared legal challenges. The government gave up.


25 Planemaker : What is "extremely" conservative? There are so many variables. Yes, certainly in the mid-term. I can see it going forward eventually but the problem,
26 DocLightning : Right. The point is that such a regulation would basically stop every airline in the world from wanting to use JFK as their U.S. gateway. Would mean
27 STT757 : There's no such project to link Grand Central and New York Penn, I wish there was. The 7 train extension is going to the far West Side several blocks
28 JoeCanuck : From all reports, it's been that way for years. It's not just lack of runways or ATC, it's overbooking of existing facilities. Slots have been handed
29 FlyPNS1 : Conservative to the point that they could easily chop a half to a whole mile off the spacing standards and still not increase the exposure to wake tu
30 Planemaker : With the FAA desperately trying to increase capacity every which way, if that is truly the case, then it would be fairly simple for the FAA to implem
31 Lightsaber : To everyone: This thread focuses solving the problem for one city that is particularly difficult to solve its transportation problem. Something more
32 Tdscanuck : The SEA runway was also initiated ~30 years ago...it was needed for decades. Although it doesn't increase capacity at SEA in any meaningful way. It's
33 FlyPNS1 : The FAA would disagree. There's little chance they'll reduce the standards until they have more precise information on aircraft position. We don't ne
34 Divemaster08 : Next Gen ATC (I presume they are talking about ADS-B) i cant see will help out congestion. It will allow a more acurrate location of aircraft however.
35 Davescj : It would be nice if a simpler hub changed was offered. I used to love to change planes in CVG for this very reason. I'd opt for it or DTW over ATL an
36 Planemaker : You think that ATC don't have precise location information when airliner's are on final?? Yes we do. Airlines will not upgauge because they choose fr
37 Rheinwaldner : But what if the congestion caused by the flood of smaller planes delays them so much that the effect of the increased frequency is lost? The passenge
38 Tharanga : Where? Agreed with Rheinwaldner. The airlines choose frequency under the current rules. Change the rules, and the the optimum strategy will be differ
39 Aaron747 : How is more concrete more efficient? Inquiring minds would really like to know given the expense and time-and-again-proven concept of induced demand.
40 AVLAirlineFreq : I know there is a lot of focus in this thread upon NYC airports, and with good reason. But this happens elsewhere, too. I missed a connection in ATL l
41 Post contains links PPVRA : I just ran into an interesting article: http://reason.org/files/8d0a16090fa96552971562436dd54fed.pdf I had never heard of this. Will look into it when
42 FlyPNS1 : Not precise enough for the FAA to be comfortable. And if you really want to improve capacity, you will have to reduce spacing beyond just the final a
43 PPVRA : High frequency is demanded by passengers, and RJs are the response. The airlines didn't set out to buy a ton of RJs because they had a dream, competi
44 STT757 : It's an FBO airport, corporate jets only. They are regulated to nothing bigger than a MD-80, adding commercial to TEB would not be a good idea as TEB
45 FlyPNS1 : That's not totally true. On many routes, airlines replaced mainline with RJ's not because of passenger demand for more frequency, but because it was
46 9V-SPJ : At Georgia Tech, I was involved in a very large study based on an NRA from NASA. The results will be published soon, but adding more runways is not al
47 Tharanga : Thank you for that insight, and do post it here when it is published. This goes back to the gut feeling of the pilot who thought closing LGA would ac
48 Revelation : C'mon now, both the Yankees and the Mets just got new city-built stadiums (stadia?)....
49 Rheinwaldner : The congestion pricing should be a price tag that results in a high price for a small "capacity moved per flight". The larger the plane the smaller t
50 Tharanga : You don't even need to do that. Just make the fees independent of weight, that's all. I suppose the fee was weight-based to compensate for wear-and-t
51 STT757 : 89.1% according to last months Port Authority figures: 89.1% O&D for LGA 70.7% O&D for JFK 64.2% O&D for EWR
52 Lightsaber : Which would penalize AA amoung others. But oen of the posters on a.net showed a JFK with one more runway in each wind direction. It can be done and t
53 Cubsrule : IAD just opened a fourth runway - I don't think they'll need a fifth within the next fifteen years (although they have plans for one).
54 SEPilot : Yes, indeed, as I know from personal experience, and the most serious breach of ATC procedures I have ever been guilty of. I was taking off from TEB,
55 Planemaker : This is the aircraft breakdown at LGA... Airbus Industrie A319 19.04% Canadair (Bombardier) Regional Jet 11.44% De Havilland (Bombardier) DHC-8 Dash
56 GolfBravoRomeo : And parts of SIDS. Do you know what percentage of departures use LANNA or PARKE? Isn't it fun when there are thunderstorms over them. On a different
57 Lightsaber : For bad weather operations, I respectfully disagree.
58 Revelation : And hopefully it can be implemented without a lot of NIMBY lawsuits...
59 Tharanga : IAD is being as pro-active as you might want. New runway, new aerotrain, and plans for new concourses and runways ready to go. You can ask for more,
60 Cubsrule : Me too - but by that criterion, ATL needs another runway too. How many days have bad weather conditions? I've departed on 30 often and occasionally a
61 Planemaker : It does... it only has one crosswind runway and ATL is the busiest airport in the world. Great... that is your anecdotal experience. The reality is t
62 Cubsrule : ATL has zero crosswind runways, and many other airports that are just as busy also have one or zero (CLT, LAX). Sure, but there's a cost-benefit anal
63 FlyPNS1 : ATL has NO crosswind runways. Extremely rare in IAD's case. The primary reason that the fifth runway will be crosswind is that the piece of land IAD
64 Dl767captain : I thought by now we would go back to using something like a 757 or 767 instead of frequency to get the same amount of people in to an airport to solv
65 Lightsaber : and more terminal space. It has to be a better use of money than continuing to extend unemployment/welfare benefits. If the runway will pay off withi
66 DocLightning : It's that and also a burdensome system of excessive environmental regulation. You can't build anything in the Bay Area because you will hurt some for
67 FlyPNS1 : We won't be returning to any glory days, with or without the airport infrastructure. Actually, that's not true. There's always been a struggle to kee
68 Tharanga : Again, based on how IAD is progressing, they seem to be on top of things, and will build when prudent. Overbuild, and you'll drive up landing fees an
69 Cubsrule : How so? Will the winds change? The only thing that runway is needed for is crosswinds - the three parallel runways and 12/30 are more than sufficient
70 Lightsaber : Yea... somehow the wated fuel is better than a runway. Sigh... We're at the point of the economy where the government should be subsidizing infrastru
71 Planemaker : They are not underused... otherwise they would be higher up on the list of on-time arrivals and departures. Don't fixate on airports that recently ha
72 Cubsrule : How would the lack of 11/29 at STL affect either the number of ontime arrivals or the number of ontime departures?
73 Post contains links Tharanga : I only discuss IAD because somebody else thought IAD in particular should build another runway now. If the federal government is going to put additio
74 FlyPNS1 : You need to look at some real numbers as both CVG and STL have on-time arrival numbers that are near 90%. And some of that remaining delay is caused
75 PPVRA : A pure free market model would require private, unregulated control of airports and the airspace system. Today we have only the airplanes in private
76 Tharanga : I agree here. If B6 thinks it's better to keep flying E190s into JFK, instead of changing their business and upgauging, they should be allowed to do
77 MSNDC9 : Atlanta has no crosswind runways and it doesn't need any because it has adequate wind coverage.
78 JoeCanuck : Indeed. Even if more runways and related infrastructure was approved for NYC, it would be at least a decade until it was brought into service. In the
79 Planemaker : Well, they are ranked 14 and 17 for departures and arrival. LGA can easily acommodate twice the number of flights, too! i disagree. Not near 90%. Wit
80 FlyPNS1 : That's because new runways won't solve all problems. There will always be some delays caused by extremely severe weather, ATC problems, aircraft mech
81 Cubsrule : I have trouble with the concept of "costs on society." We seem to have made a societal judgment that some level of service from small cities to NYC i
82 Planemaker : No it doesn't. Those are only 2 of several airports that can use new runways. Your sentiment would have precluded ORD's improvement.
83 Lightsaber : Hence my frustration... Sigh. Cal-Osha, "community reviews" of construction for the city building permits, etc. You have to do an emissions review of
84 MSNDC9 : I don't think you get the whole system delay thingy. CVG and STL do not have capacity problems in any way shape or form. Their delays are caused by o
85 FlyPNS1 : But your just throwing out delay numbers and claiming its all due to runways which is simply not true. You could build 10 runways at CVG and you'd st
86 Lightsaber : You weren't reading my smilie's. I wasn't serious on some of those proposals! You do seem to have one response, don't expand. Ghad... Oh well, China
87 MSNDC9 : You don't expand airports for the sake of building runways. You have to have an operational need for the capacity to financially justify it.
88 FlyPNS1 : But what's that go to do with the U.S.? Most of those Chinese runways won't help us in any way. If I want to fly from IAD to PNS, having ten new runw
89 DocLightning : Fair enough. But when you're talking about JFK, EWR, LGA, or SFO, I think you have that justification.
90 STT757 : But there are other ways to realize the potential for more passengers to be carried without adding more flights, less CRJs, ERJs and more 737-800s.
91 Apodino : I am sorry, I gotta raise the BS flag. If LGA could easily acommodate twice the number of flights it currently does, you would not see Ground Delay P
92 Planemaker : Gee, we already have congestion... so I guess that you are right and the FAA, Boeing, et al are all wrong about future growth.
93 DocLightning : Yes. What you are saying is that there is no single solution to the problem. You can fix NextGen ATC and that will solve some problems, but it will n
94 Flighty : New York has already has plenty of capacity (~ 3,000 daily flights). If they were all 747, this could carry some 1.5 million people into NYC every day
95 MSNDC9 : No I'm realistic about this while you're hanging out in Fantasyland talking about new runways at LGA and EWR. Furthermore, its not about being wrong
96 IAHFLYR : In your opinion! When you consider the IAH runway layout and how inefficient the airport actually is during low weather conditions, additional runway
97 R2rho : Actually, the most important aspect of the new runway is the considerable improvement in airport capacity in IFR conditions, in terms of movements/ho
98 Cubsrule : Correct - but STL is down to about 300 daily operations and will be more like 250 once AA trims in April. Two simultaneous arrivals are not necessary
99 Post contains images PPVRA : Going into this would take this thread into a philosophical debate. But just so that I say something, surely you can imagine that a decision to, say,
100 Cubsrule : Absolutely, and I'm not sure that service to small cities is appropriate at peak hours. But I also think that if we completely deregulated the NYC ai
101 PPVRA : That basically goes for anything. Sometimes great ideas turn out not to be so great. .
102 SEPilot : Actually, I think PPVRA's approach is better. I do not want to see any regulations dictating what airlines can and can't do; I want to see economic i
103 Ssublyme : Bigger planes. Why not create a program that makes it prohibitively expensive to land RJ's at NYC airports during peak times. This would force some of
104 MSNDC9 : Because pricing a certain carrier or type of carrier out of a market constitutes discrimination and is therefore against Federal Law. What will happe
105 SEPilot : It is only discrimination if it is applied unequally; so that it applies to some airlines and not others. Pricing that reflects air congestion and no
106 MSNDC9 : If it wasn't discriminatory, and it actually worked for that matter, it would be in use.
107 Cubsrule : So every possible non-discriminatory regulation scheme is in use?
108 SEPilot : Since when do sensible regulations get adopted?
109 Tharanga : It'd be in use if the airlines didn't scream and fuss about it, whenever it's proposed.
110 MSNDC9 : Never. Thats the problem. Thats the other problem. To me, the easiest solution is a minimum seat count per departure. That would probably be discrimi
111 Thegeek : I also prefer the solution of a flat fee per departure. A by weight charge makes 747 ops less economic and CONTRIBUTES to the problem. A332s are also
112 Cubsrule : It's not discriminatory - some LGA and DCA slots have MAXIMUM numbers of seats per departure now. That leaves only a takings problem in the way, but
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...
Steenland: "amfa Will Not Be Part Of Bankruptcy" posted Thu Sep 15 2005 03:34:16 by LUVRSW
TTI Will Not Seek Extension Of AC Investment posted Fri Apr 2 2004 23:54:16 by CanadaEH
US Airways Will Not Take Delivery Of CRJ-705 posted Wed Jul 9 2003 21:39:21 by Flyingbronco05
Will Lack Of Credit And High Rates Hamper Orders? posted Mon Oct 6 2008 00:05:06 by Art
AF Will Not Restart Daylight JFK-CDG Next Summer posted Mon Mar 3 2008 10:06:31 by FlySSC
Who Will NOT Buy A350 Because Of No GE? posted Sat Oct 20 2007 11:46:18 by 797charter
Lack Of Quick Engine Swap On 787 - Will It Hurt? posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:41:17 by Clickhappy
"Acts Of War" Will Not Cover Airframes.. Any Lost? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 21:58:04 by 747hogg
747-8: Boeing Not Worried About Lack Of Sales posted Thu Jun 1 2006 20:23:10 by RedFlyer
Airbus Will Not Change The Design Of The 350 posted Mon Apr 10 2006 11:35:50 by UAL777UK