Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US To Block 40 LGA Slots Flying 94 Mile Route  
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19923 times:

This was announced in my OAG thread, but I think this needs a lot more attention.

US Airways is showing in their February schedule that in order to block slots until the DL-US deal is completed that they are going to fly LGA-PHL with 20 roundtrips (40 slots). IMHO, this is a TRAVESTY and needs media attention.

1) LGA is the most congested and delayed airport in the USA and this kind of garbage shouldn't be allowed even if it is temporary.
2) These slots could be flown with much larger aircraft than the 37 to 50 seaters US is using.
3) These slots could be used to create competition if given to WN or B6.
4) There is almost no local market at all from PHL to LGA.
5) They don't even fly LGA-DCA with that much frequency.
6) That's more flights to PHL than PHL has connecting banks!!!
7) Small and medium sized communities are losing flights to LGA so US can waste the slots on this trick.

This should be exposed as the ploy it is in the media.

177 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19876 times:

Why the high dudgeon? There is ample evidence that other airlines at LGA and other airports have been doing this since approximately the day after slots were invented.

Rationing always forces inefficiencies.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineArt at ISP From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19867 times:

You make an interesting point. I think it bears further investigation too.

By the time you get to the airport go through security and fly, you could have driven or taken the train. In any case I think the point to point fares are outrageous.

I will make some discreet inquiries. Thanks for the information.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19845 times:

I would hold off on your anger a bit until another week or two passes. While I appreciate your OAG changes threads, as we've often seen sometimes things are loaded incorrectly.

But lets say you are right and US will fly LGA-PHL 20x temporarily. I don't see the big deal if its only for a month or two until the slot transaction is closed. It's not like they are adding new flights and creating more congestion.

Now, if this was long-term, I could see where this might be a bigger deal.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19809 times:



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 1):
Rationing always forces inefficiencies.

Facts seem to prove this on a regular basis.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineJA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19768 times:

HAHAHA! Now THAT is funny. The same 3-4 aircraft go round and round and round. A square dance without the hot chicks.

I can imagine that this is very short term. This is the most "personnel" efficient way to hold those spots.


User currently offlineIliriBDL From Germany, joined May 2007, 1205 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19763 times:



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
But lets say you are right and US will fly LGA-PHL 20x temporarily. I don't see the big deal if its only for a month or two until the slot transaction is closed. It's not like they are adding new flights and creating more congestion.

Exactly, it's part of the deal, I'm sure every other airline would do the same thing.

Now if it lasted for more than 3 months, then something is wrong.



delta.com
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19744 times:

An airline will do almost anything to keep their slots at LGA. That includes running unprofitable flights. A lot of these flights will be operated by their express partners to hold the slot. Slots at LGA are on a "use it or lose it" basis. Each slot can be worth several million dollars. Losing these slots with a business deal pending would be devistating to both US and DL.

User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7191 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19717 times:



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
I would hold off on your anger a bit until another week or two passes. While I appreciate your OAG changes threads, as we've often seen sometimes things are loaded incorrectly.

I'm hoping they are shamed into changing it immediately. They can call it a mistake if they want to. Clearly they pulled a bunch of flights from other places and added a bunch of PHL flights to hold the slots.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
But lets say you are right and US will fly LGA-PHL 20x temporarily. I don't see the big deal if its only for a month or two until the slot transaction is closed. It's not like they are adding new flights and creating more congestion.

Just for congestion alone it is RIDICULOUS. They should take anybody's slots away that behaves that overtly.


User currently offlineIliriBDL From Germany, joined May 2007, 1205 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19680 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 8):
Just for congestion alone it is RIDICULOUS.

They're not increasing it, you just said they pulled up a bunch of flights from other places and converted into PHL flights. It's the same amount of flights, probably smaller planes. No big deal.



delta.com
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25381 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19656 times:

Man what drama this early in the morning.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
TRAVESTY

 Confused Hardly. Its called business.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
LGA is the most congested and delayed airport in the USA and this kind of garbage shouldn't be allowed even if it is temporary.

There is no net increase of flights. Hardly matters for the tower if a slot it used for a 98 mile flight or a 1500 mile flight. A movement is a movement.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
These slots could be flown with much larger aircraft than the 37 to 50 seaters US is using.

As you know there are no size restrictions on slots.

Airlines based on commercial decisions are free to decide to use a RJ or a jumbo if they wish. Remember the economic onus is on them. So if it makes sense sure they would utilize bigger equipment.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
These slots could be used to create competition if given to WN or B6.

Maybe, but there is a well established process for slots. Why punish a carrier that over time has rightfully acquired the slots it has. B6 or WN were free to make a deal with US as DL is doing now.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
Small and medium sized communities are losing flights to LGA so US can waste the slots on this trick

Dont worry - DL be restoring service to plenty of small communities.


So yes it appears US sitting on slots them to keep them warm till the DL transaction complete, but I would hardly blame them for pursuing such a commercial strategy. Why loose money needlessly.

If the issue of RJ's at LGA rubs you the wrong way, suggest maybe you submit to the government a plan that would either ban or create a subset of slots, but for now airlines are free to utilize the slots as they deem most efficient for their needs.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2004 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19537 times:

How many weeks or months can an airline sit on a slot and not use it before it needs to be returned for bidding? If there is a time limit, why not just drop the flights and hold it till the swap happens? That would do everyone good as it would relieve a little congestion for a period of time.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Dont worry - DL be restoring service to plenty of small communities.

I'll believe it when I see it. At least these airports have the service right now, all they are doing is losing a few frequencies. I only think Delta will start flying cities where it wants to compete with others. Example: CAK - LGA where AirTran makes a killing. Delta will come in with 3x daily and try and run AirTran off the route. That's what I see Delta doing instead of trying to make other smaller cities work.


User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3297 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19362 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 8):

Just for congestion alone it is RIDICULOUS. They should take anybody's slots away that behaves that overtly.

Is it illegal?

Nope.

Case closed.


User currently offlinePhlstudent From United States of America, joined May 2006, 498 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19253 times:

I could be wrong byt, wasn't BA doing something similar at LHR at some point? and LHR is way more congested than LGA ever will be.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19228 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Hardly matters for the tower if a slot it used for a 98 mile flight or a 1500 mile flight. A movement is a movement.

Actually, a short flight isn't going to be as congesting as a longer flight, since it won't be blocking up the high altitude airways. It'll be out of the way more quickly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19229 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 8):
Just for congestion alone it is RIDICULOUS. They should take anybody's slots away that behaves that overtly.

These slots are rightly US' and they can use them as they see fit. They are not overcrowding LGA anymore than it is now, as they are not adding flights. They are simply using the slots in a different manner. All for a good reason as they are preparing to hand them over to DL. So why is everyone getting their panties in a bunch?



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19165 times:

The most logical solution here is for a common-sense waiver of the rules: allow US to not use the slots, until they've been moved to DL.

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
3) These slots could be used to create competition if given to WN or B6.

How does that make any sense? The slots are going to DL, as soon as possible.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 1):
Rationing always forces inefficiencies.

The only problem here is that the slots aren't being transferred quickly enough to the airline that wants to use them. There is no inherent problem here with slots; just a matter of making the transfer in a timely manner. Hence, I think US should be allowed to leave the slots unused, until DL gets them.


User currently offlinePI731 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18923 times:

What’s the problem?? US now flies PHL-LGA 12-16 round trips a day now. And I’m pretty sure they’re not getting additional slots. So it won’t cause any more congestion. And what about Horizon’s SEAPDX 20+ For the longest time they were on DH2s. If US used E70s it would be ok???

User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2103 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18707 times:

Looks like the cut frequencies to some other cities out of LGA and moved the flights to PHL. Given the pending deal with DL, this could actually benefit the company and customers at the same time.

The reduction in capacity to the connecting cities may allow them to raise the price a bit to places like SYR or ROC. Meanwhile, in the event of inclement weather, flights can be canceled and the passengers can still get to LGA through PHL. It will also allow them to run more flights for the international passengers connecting through PHL, as those flights are frequently oversold.


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18399 times:

The problem is the prcedure for transferring the slots not the actions of US. Clearly, US is pulling back operations at LGA and accordingly they have made a deal to sell their uneeded slots to DL. Unfortunately, the regulators are the ones that are delaying the actual transfer of the slots. US has three options while waiting for the regulators...

1) Use the solts as they have been and lose a ton of money
2) Use the slots in a fashion that will minimize their losses
3) Stop using the slots and lose them without compensation

Come on if you are US, which one are you going to choose?


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5438 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18144 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 16):
The only problem here is that the slots aren't being transferred quickly enough to the airline that wants to use them. There is no inherent problem here with slots; just a matter of making the transfer in a timely manner. Hence, I think US should be allowed to leave the slots unused, until DL gets them.

It may also be that the DOT, with DOJ prodding, doesn't take such a benign view of the slot transfer as we think. Actually, I'm surprised some other airline hasn't objected.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18148 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Actually, a short flight isn't going to be as congesting as a longer flight, since it won't be blocking up the high altitude airways. It'll be out of the way more quickly.

I think they are strictly addressing congestion at the field. Note, he speaks of the "tower" not caring.

Out of the way more quickly? I wonder what the low alt Center sector feeding TRACON, and TRACON folks would say?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3805 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17939 times:



Quoting Flyinryan99 (Reply 11):
I only think Delta will start flying cities where it wants to compete with others. Example: CAK - LGA where AirTran makes a killing. Delta will come in with 3x daily and try and run AirTran off the route. That's what I see Delta doing instead of trying to make other smaller cities work.

 checkmark That would at least be consistent with the legacies' concept of "innovation." As in their predatory practices... along with collusion (both legalized in the laissez-faire, anything-goes deregulated environment of today) ...plus nickeling and diming of customers, outsourcing more and more of their high-density routes to RJ operators, and the ongoing race to the bottom in the area of customer service ...all of which seem to be as "innovative" and "outside the box" as the legacies are capable of thinking.

Quoting Captaink (Reply 15):
They are not overcrowding LGA anymore than it is now, as they are not adding flights. They are simply using the slots in a different manner. All for a good reason as they are preparing to hand them over to DL. So why is everyone getting their panties in a bunch?

Detestable as the obvious motivation behind US's 20x daily LGA-PHL each way may seem on the surface there is indeed a legitimate "method to their (seeming) madness" ...what is "wrong with this picture" is that, until the slot transfer can be completed, US is obligated to beat whoever makes the rules concerning LGA slots at their own proverbial game by operating senseless "placeholder" flights that will probably be money-losers, albeit at losses that will no doubt be nicely offset by the $ale price of the slot$... all of which validates the point made earlier:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 1):
Rationing always forces inefficiencies.



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 16):
The most logical solution here is for a common-sense waiver of the rules: allow US to not use the slots, until they've been moved to DL.

 checkmark  As much as this "radical" solution is 101% in line with common-sense... keep in mind that it makes waaaay too much sense for the parties concerned... airlines and, even more so, a (presumably government) regulatory agency Wink

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
As you know there are no size restrictions on slots.

Which is another flaw in LGA slot allocation...and a subject on which there have been short-lived "rumblings" in the past. If slots are to be restricted in number, priority should be given to those who will move more pax with the number of slots allocated, with a strictly limited number being made available for legitimate movements by aircraft seating fewer than 100 pax.


User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17872 times:



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
It's not like they are adding new flights and creating more congestion.

Not at LGA, but at PHL!

Quoting Phlstudent (Reply 13):
and LHR is way more congested than LGA ever will be.

No. LHR generally runs pretty efficiently as long as the weather's decent and there are no runway closure issues. LGA is routinely backed up due to ATC/flow control/spacing even on severe clear days, and if the weather's bad ... forget it.


User currently offlineStrandedinbgm From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17838 times:

Completely asinine.

Currently there is no direct air link between Binghamton and NYC. Sure would be nice to see at least one direct flight. While that flight might not be profitable, it might be less non profitable than on of those 20 flights to PHL.

Time to call my Congressman.



It's 737s, 747s and 380s. Not 737's, 747's and 380's. Learn to use the apostrophe for crying out loud.
25 Apodino : A few points as to why this this is happening. 1. US and DL have the slot transaction. US was expecting this to be done in Feb, so route planning was
26 Mir : When the center issues MIT restrictions that don't apply to the low altitude guys, then it will make a big difference. They'd probably agree. It's a
27 PlanesNTrains : Seems reminiscent of DL throwing flights at LAX in a thinly-veiled attempt at keeping their gates in use until after a new agreement was signed. Not t
28 Enilria : I'm not suggesting this will make things worse...I'm suggesting LGA is already horrible and stopping this kind of B.S. would make things bearable the
29 Tharanga : I still don't understand what you want them to do. They're already giving the slots up. In the meantime, they'll use the slots in the least loss-maki
30 Jetdudetim : Umm, do you get that they HAVE to do this because of the "rules"? Do you get that if they did what you suggest, the entire airline system would have
31 Silentbob : With 20 flights a day, you can move the cancellations around pretty easily. That is something like a flight every 45 minutes on average.
32 Lightsaber : Hence why I'm for airport expansion. There is no way to force airlines to use widebodies. But as far as US doing this? It is that. But its within the
33 Flighty : Why aren't you mad about US and others doing exactly this for over ten years? Maybe the public just didn't understand how poorly LGA and other NYC air
34 N62NA : Since there aren't any additional flights being thrown into the already messed up situation that passes for flying into the NYC area.... this really i
35 YULWinterSkies : Time for these big US A333s to do some NYC-PHL runs. Or, even better, a high speed train. Ooops, what did I just say?
36 Enilria : They will do what is best for them. The govt should do what is best for the consumer and this is not what is best for the consumer. They need to chan
37 SPREE34 : Could you elaborate? I'm not getting what you're saying here.
38 LAXtoATL : You do understand that the govt is the reason this is occuring right? The gov't is the reason for the delay of the slots being transferred not the ai
39 DeltaL1011man : And we should give them all to WN. sorry Enilria.......what they are doing is 100% right. Now if they keep doing it and they dont get the slot swap a
40 Mir : A flight from LGA to PHL (or vice versa) isn't going to use the high altitude airways the same way a flight from LGA to ATL would. So it's not going
41 LimaNiner : Simple answer: auction landing slots on a regular (monthly? quarterly? annual?) basis. Who would bid on an unprofitable route? As much as the unions h
42 Mainliner : I work this flight very often on the DHC-8-100 and can tell you that it is full almost all the time. As we are usually weight restricted, it is always
43 MSYPI7185 : Sounds like an airliner version of NASCAR....:D I understand why they are doing this, they really do not have much of a choice. I anyone is going to c
44 Maverick623 : Right. Let's get one thing straight here: you're basically advocating for re-regulation of airlines. It's not gonna happen. End of story. As for "the
45 Moose135 : How would having the same number of flights going to different destinations make things "bearable" at LGA? How would having the same number of flight
46 DeltaL1011man : Because everything the US gov. does becomes gold.
47 RL757PVD : How is that Garbage? that was also near the pre-acela time with PVD supported almost 30 daily flights to the NYC area.
48 Usairways85 : I am no expert on this but something tells me the airspace between LGA and PHL is busy at all altitudes. When you have PHL, EWR, ABE, TEB, McGuire, J
49 VictorKilo : If US was expecting the slot transaction to be done by February, and if US was expecting that the deal will be completed as soon as they get approval,
50 Mir : It really isn't. Sure, there are planes there, but there is capacity to handle more, unlike the higher altitudes which can get saturated over the dep
51 LAXtoATL : Excellent observation. So ultimately this in the best interest of the customer as well. As I stated previously all would be avoided if the regulators
52 Tharanga : I agree with that, but that isn't the issue here. That's a different discussion, and has been discussed in other threads. Presumably that's what the
53 JFKMan : This is part of the deal with DL. I would rather US do this anyday then to give those slots to airlines like WN or B6. They would do the same if they
54 Jambrain : I understand why US are doing it, but to anyone outside an airline burning jet-A shifting air is messed up, when it is using capacity in one of the m
55 TheGMan : That's awesome. Non-rev express. Lets spend a day bouncing from LGA to PHL.
56 N62NA : I know you are from the UK, and we both speak the same language (English), but I need you to translate some of those terms you used!
57 Mariner : I don't understand how they can do the slot swap. If US does not want its LGA slots, shouldn't they be relinquished and put up for bid? Or Delta at DC
58 PlanesNTrains : I'd agree, but I fail to see how in the interim this is a huge problem. It would appear to be a temporary placeholder while they await government app
59 Enilria : You do understand that if there weren't slots at LGA then it would be a parking lot and probably a safety issue as well. They tried not having slots
60 Mariner : The idea of a corporation being able to "own" public infrastructure puzzles me. The idea of a corporation being able to hold an airport's air service
61 Ridgid727 : then "They" should change it so a company is not forced to do this. If you had an interest in the slots yourself, you would do anything legal to prot
62 FlyPNS1 : But how would this prevent the previous situation of creating massive congestion like with the RJ slots? Instead of flooding the airport with RJ's, t
63 LAXtoATL : Those are two different situations. The situation at LGA is a slot issue, the other example you mention is route authority. As far as the slots at LG
64 Mariner : Yes, I understand that. My puzzle - as indicated in post #60 - is why should that be? Why should a corporation be allowed to "own" public infrastruct
65 JA : Congestion pricing is already in effect at these airports to some extent. I believe the current landing fee at LGA is $8.20/1000 lbs. So, carriers are
66 SPREE34 : Incorrect. The backup starts at the runway, backs up into the TRACON airspace (Low alt.), and then into the low altitude Center sectors. You pretty m
67 LAXtoATL : Well, my best guess is that some politician realized they could make money by selling the slots to the airlines versus just giving them the authoriza
68 TheGMan : Oh and in case anyone wanted to know, tomorrow 29NOV there will be 19 PHL-LGA flights and all are on DASH8, and all have 5 or less open seats on them.
69 FlyPNS1 : For an airport as congested as LGA, that landing fee is quite low. Of course, if they would just charge a flat rate landing fee it would eliminate th
70 PlanesNTrains : This is similar to the forums on the local news station website when everyone gets riled up over something legal. If you don't like the outcome, chan
71 PPVRA : I don't like the idea of auctioning off slots either. A simple analogy IMO is the oldest profession. . . one does not buy a right to use these people
72 Enilria : Technically the airlines do not own the slots. They "own" the right to use them which is revocable. In face, the much maligned Bush administration (a
73 Mariner : For all that, US "sold" a big bunch of "slots" to Republic and then leased 'em back. mariner
74 Jambrain : Barking mad Meaning: Insane; intensely mad I guess it doesn't translate to well as the phrase owes its origin to a mediaeval asylum for the insane wh
75 TheGMan : They're not 70 seaters, more like 38 and 50 seaters.
76 Flighty : The landing fee has no effect on congestion because all the slots are still being sat on. So the predictable result is many Dash-8 or perhaps even ult
77 Silentbob : The cost of a true high speed rail connection from PHL to NYC would run into the billions of dollars. You also have to consider that most of the traf
78 Bigphilnyc : Your point that larger aircraft can use these slots instead applies to almost all airlines that operate at LGA. The airport is far under capacity, ev
79 Enilria : Agreed that it's a fine line, but the "right" is very clearly revocable. The fact that airlines and banks are using them as financing vehicles is not
80 Tharanga : I strongly agree with this comment. The discussion is confused because the OP seems to be generally upset with the overall situation at LGA, but star
81 CokePopper : Then the govt should dictate the price of the ticket no? When does it stop? Will the govt step in and dictated what cities will be served and at what
82 PPVRA : Would you sell access to your house? Or even business? I wouldn't. For my house, you can come in if you're invited. For my business, so long the door
83 Cubsrule : Doesn't it depend what sort of business you are in? Businesses in the service sector sell access all the time.
84 PPVRA : If an airline sells you (grants you access to) a seat between JFK and LAX, you don't have a permanent claim on that seat for future flights. Just on
85 Flighty : Exactly, we are talking about the difference between renting and owning. In this case "owning" was not the right policy design. It was a mistake by t
86 R2rho : We've had a lot of threads about the chaos in NY airports and how to solve it, but the title of this one pretty much sums it up! US here is doing some
87 Enilria : Elimination of the slots would allow fair and open entry, while maintaining competition. The seat limitation would offset the swarm of new lower fare
88 Tharanga : It's the slots that keeps the airport from being even more overscheduled. They need to be kept. Fair and open entry would be achieved by having perio
89 Cubsrule : Here, we agree - without access to facilities, the slot is meaningless. But if the airport appropriately manages its gates, access to facilities shou
90 Enilria : Airlines are willing to "squat" on slots with dumb routes because the cost of flying small planes makes it cost-effective to block slots. It would co
91 Cubsrule : What is a sensible rule to prohibit squatting? All that any such change accomplishes, in a vacuum at least, is driving up the cost of operating at an
92 Tharanga : How does it matter where the money goes, in terms of how well the auction works? It's an auction. The price is set by the bidder. The periodic re-auc
93 FlyPNS1 : Which is exactly what needs to happen. Right now, it is too cheap to operate at LGA and so cheap that carriers will squat on slots (or use excessivel
94 Cubsrule : Is there any evidence that US and DL ganged up? DL had something US wanted - WN and B6 do not. Isn't that why we have antitrust laws? I'm not sure th
95 FlyPNS1 : But is AA going to be willing to let their slots be auctioned knowing full well they could fall into the hands of WN/B6? I doubt it. Your auction ide
96 Cubsrule : As a general matter, though, I think it's better to try enforcing existing laws as a baseline before making new law. That's the tough part of this pl
97 Jetlanta : Plus the DCA slots provide long-term enterprise value to the company. Simply selling LGA slots to the highest bidder is a short-term move of desperat
98 Tharanga : None of the airlines that currently have a lot of slots will agree to any such change to the status quo. At some point, you have to just push it thro
99 Cubsrule : If the transfer of that much market share (in NYC) were the result of a merger, it would be presumptively anticompetitive. In all likelihood, that wo
100 Post contains links CokePopper : Looks like the Pilots Union would like to delay this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...uTvI8BlONhrAiNufAEiCdPHuAD9CA49PO2 ATLANTA — US Airways
101 Tharanga : I assume that's why it's taking so long for the government to decide. Eminent domain is already in the Constitution. In this case, the slots are arbi
102 FlyPNS1 : Problem is that the existing laws are so vague and weak, there tough to enforce. Somehow I think the airlines would see that as an empty threat. But
103 Jetlanta : But it doesn't matter whether YOU think there is value to US. It matters that US does.
104 Tharanga : Ultimately, those are the same thing. Customers vote with their wallets. What would you suggest instead, handing out slots based on popularity rating
105 FlyPNS1 : True, but based on the financial performance of US over the past decade, I'm not totally sure the folks at US know what real value is. Not totally tr
106 Cubsrule : The only way I can see to do it without litigation is with a constitutional amendment - that's why I meant. The vagueness also allows government to e
107 SPREE34 : LMAO! Le's ask them about their concern for all of thee communities next time they strike. Priceless.
108 Enilria : If you couldn't buy and sell slots there would not be the need to hold on to an unprofitable asset or as much need to protect the value of your other
109 Cubsrule : If anything, there would be MORE incentive to squat; at least with the ability to sell the slots, there is some chance that they might go to a carrie
110 Micstatic : Southwest and Jetblue didn't have a slew of valuable DCA slots to offer in return.
111 Enilria : I'm told that US threatened to take the slots to WN or B6 if DL didn't buy them, but that is where it stopped. Something similar will happen with the
112 Cubsrule : ...but for all we know, WN and B6 never showed any interest. I have great confidence that if Gary Kelly had wanted to speak with US about these slots
113 PlanesNTrains : I guess I'm lost....so now, higher airfares are "bad" for the pilots??? Why would a pilot care where they fly their plane to as long as they are gett
114 Tharanga : Just don't let anybody have more than 60% of them, or so. Anyway, if anybody tries to corner the market by bidding up the prices really high, they'd
115 Enilria : BTW, it's hilarious that only the US pilots are out saying this transaction is anti-consumer...and they are only doing it for their own selfish reason
116 Crosswinds21 : Yeah, I'm sure that reduction of service to smaller communities and higher fares are their top concern. This kind of reminds me of that time that AA
117 Tharanga : The way I imagine it, all the current slots would be erased. You're basically starting over. The government would compensate the holders of the curre
118 Cubsrule : Nothing (it keeps people like me employed), but apparently, the government doesn't want to do it - that's why EWR didn't have a slot auction. ...whic
119 Tharanga : They also called off any such plans for LGA. I understand that point, but we have to evaluate what is most likely. Most likely: continuing with the c
120 Flighty : Good solution. Very, very nice. But please, in addition to NYC benefits let's also keep sight of the >50% of air delays across the nation that are ca
121 Enilria : I agree that taking all the slots is the way to go rather than piecemeal like Bush wanted. I disagree with compensation because that opens up a lot o
122 Cubsrule : Right - but we know that that was at least partially because no one objected. That will probably fail. Incumbents will simply bid up the value of the
123 Slcdeltarumd11 : That was right after Thanksgiving so i would expect pretty decent loads. I also looked at the loads after reading this forum cause i was interested t
124 Tharanga : Whoever 'owns' them, the airlines hold them, and that possession is valuable to the airlines. Taking them away will require compensation. The revenue
125 Silentbob : If you spread out the slots among more airlines, it really isn't going to benefit anyone. Let's say we take 25 slots away from someone and give them t
126 Jetlanta : Enilria, Is the government also going to compensate the carriers that invested hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars in their NYC facilities
127 Tharanga : I'd agree with that, but if one can reduce barriers to entry at the same time (while you're reducing the number of slots), and create an active marke
128 Tharanga : Hard to argue with that. My only criticism is that the market for slots could be more liquid, with a higher volume of slots being bought and sold or
129 FlyPNS1 : But you ignore that it was a chnage in rule that helped that little southern carrier get to where it is in NYC. The government dramatically changed t
130 Jetlanta : WN could have agreed to purchase US out of bankruptcy, no? If HP could do it, US could have. Heck, WN could buy US today! It's not that they can't, i
131 FlyPNS1 : C'mon I expect better from you. So you expect WN to bankrupt itself buying a completely incompatible carrier just to get slots at DCA/LGA? That's a l
132 Silentbob : The type of government involvement you support will benefit one airline (perhaps two) at the expense of the others for no other reason than to benefi
133 Jetlanta : LOL. They looked at it. Seriously. (WN, that is.) US would not have bankrupted WN. They could easily have divested the portions they didn't want. But
134 LAXtoATL : It is not that ridiculous. WN could easily absorb the entire market cap of US without it even effecting their balance sheet, they could do it without
135 Jetlanta : I'd add that someone took a chance on a very sick People Express operation many years ago. See where that ended up.
136 Commavia : So ... much ... truth ... it ... hurts. Amen to all of the above. It is important to remember that the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of ha
137 SPREE34 : The gates and slots would fit just fine. The attitude of the employee group that comes with them would not. Southwest will never want anything that b
138 LAXtoATL : I agree. But WN could integrate the assets they want and maintain the rest as a separate entity to sell off or kill off. (similar to the plans they h
139 ADent : I think slots should be held for 10 years and 10% of all slots expire every year and go on a eBay style auction. This would allow a slow and steady tu
140 Post contains images Tharanga : Which is why the airlines don't want to pare back the schedules. Maybe there's a Ryanair idea in here: sell a provisional ticket for $20. If the weat
141 FlyPNS1 : Tomorrow, the government could declare slots null and void at LGA and AA would have NOTHING. Slots were created solely as a tool of traffic flow mana
142 Tharanga : You can't buy, sell or barter a dinner reservation with another diner. This is different. I think compensation is required. Airlines make all sorts o
143 Cubsrule : Wrong. AA would have the right to fly from ORD to LGA whenever it wanted. That's why canceling slot regimes altogether - as happened in the early par
144 FlyPNS1 : AA would have the right to schedule the flight, but not necessarily operate it. The ability to operate any flight is still contingent on ATC's abilit
145 Commavia : But if the end result of using this "tool" for traffic flow management is that one airline ends up with the slot, and one doesn't, doesn't it in effe
146 Cubsrule : I wasn't aware that ATC had the ability to unilaterally cancel flights.
147 Tharanga : That's just describing the motivation for why the slots exist, in the first place (though the wording is odd, as cubsrule points out). I don't think
148 FlyPNS1 : They don't. However, they have the full authority to delay a flight until there is capacity available. If the airport is brutally overscheduled (as w
149 Enilria : Maybe, we don't know the reasons for sure. It may be that they felt they didn't have a leg to stand on. Southwest made that exact argument with the t
150 Jetlanta : Thats fine. Take them away. It simply becomes a real estate game again. The carriers that control the gates (and often times out-right purchased or b
151 Tharanga : ? They didn't turn them into assets; that's simply what they are. They give you access to a popular but limited capacity airport. In a country withou
152 Nuggetsyl : I could be wrong but it though sfo tried to do this and lost to united.
153 Cubsrule : But at places like ORD, we never saw that. Carriers continued to schedule as much as they wanted (or, more accurately, as much as their gates could t
154 MSNDC9 : Whats interestign is I pulled out the old FAA model (1960's-1970's era) for gate allocation given a specific runway system. Their current IFR model i
155 Jetlanta : I'll tell you what happens....fares skyrocket. That is the question the public faces today, reduce capacity and increase fares (supply & demand at wo
156 Tharanga : If what you want to do is limit aircraft movements, then what you should do is actually directly limit aircraft movements. Why do it indirectly, by me
157 FlyPNS1 : You could easily remove 10-20% of LGA's flights (thereby reducing congestion), but still offer just as many seats as you do today. However, to do thi
158 MSNDC9 : Actually, reducing available facilities is dealing with the issue directly. An airfield is a system. If you overbuild the facilities that support tha
159 Cubsrule : One issue here is that the government has recognized that flights to small cities have some value, and those cities are most likely to get the axe wi
160 Tharanga : And how is that a better idea than simply reducing the number of slots by 10%? Do you somehow think the airlines will be less upset about gate closur
161 MSNDC9 : Probably not. The airlines make far too much money off of congested airports. They may talk it up, but at the end of the day, the lack of competition
162 MSNDC9 : Because it forces them to make the best use of a scarce resource. Slots aren't scarce, they are flexible bargaining chips that change over time. Gate
163 Tharanga : One, they are scarce. Without them, there'd be even more flights scheduled. Two, if you reduce the number of slots, they become even more scarce. Tha
164 MSNDC9 : Once again. The limiting of gates to the capacity of the runway is the only direct action that can be taken to limit capacity. There's no regulation
165 Cubsrule : I'm not even sure that's true - there's nothing wrong with using Gate X for departures at 0600, 0700, and 0800 if the first arrival isn't until 0830.
166 Tharanga : How is reducing the number of slots not a direct action that would limit capacity? It's as direct as it gets. You don't want them to schedule more th
167 MSNDC9 : Because as history shows, it is always up for negotiation as to whether or not they should be increased. Whats more distrubing is the silly claims co
168 Enilria : Never said anything about JFK. I'm not sure JFK should even have slots. Whatever the case, it's a different problem than DCA/LGA which have severe re
169 MSNDC9 : I'm not supposing an implicit throughput. I'm looking at the airports physical facilities as a system where the terminal facilities are designed to m
170 Tharanga : Keep in mind that they're all linked, in terms of ATC. They're sharing the same sky. Yes. If you have a slot auction, why should WN somehow be allowe
171 Flighty : Most likely, the price of LGA slots would be low. The whole reason people get excited about LGA slots is the potential for dynastic lockup, preventin
172 PlanesNTrains : Sure - reregulation. That would probably take care of a lot of the problems mentioned in this thread, I would think. Of course, it'd create new (old?
173 Cubsrule : In WAS, that's true (though service makes less sense to IAD because that kills some of the time advantage of driving for local passengers. NYC is tri
174 KcrwFlyer : Nowhere in WV has service to DCA but CRW.
175 DLDTW1962 : What is the flying time on this route? It seems like by the time they get done with the check lists it's time to land. I'm I wrong on this. But, all t
176 Slcdeltarumd11 : I think us will keep as many seats on the route, and keep the route. It will just be less frequencies in the future. They need to keep the slots fill
177 Silentbob : Haven't seen it mentioned here but I recall a situation with AA where they offered to return the slots, but only if the slots were retired and not giv
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...
SWA To Go After LGA Slots posted Tue Nov 18 2008 18:05:07 by OPNLguy
US To Start LAS-LGA, How? (LAS-BOS Too) posted Mon Aug 4 2003 19:23:07 by MAH4546
Flying From The US To Wales? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 05:39:33 by Frontiercpt
Acaa Wants US/HP To Lose DCA Beyond Slots posted Tue Nov 29 2005 20:29:14 by MAH4546
US Puts E170 On LGA-IND Route posted Sun Aug 14 2005 00:36:33 by LGAtoIND
Two BNA Route Questions Re BOS And US To EWR posted Wed Feb 23 2005 05:21:34 by Nycfuturepilot
US To Fly EMB 170's On PHL-ABE Route Come June posted Mon Apr 5 2004 19:31:20 by Freshlove1
AC, DE, HP, US To Start Flying To Costa Rica posted Thu Oct 30 2003 14:13:40 by CptGirmayTesfa
US To Operate LGA-SJU Nonstop. Perimeter Rule? posted Fri Jul 18 2003 09:49:21 by Ahlfors
Flying From The US To Uzbekistan posted Thu Aug 2 2001 02:55:33 by Airplanetire