Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airport Peak Pricing OK'd In USA  
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5239 posts, RR: 21
Posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6787 times:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...rejected-by-u-s-appeals-court.html

Fare use excerpt:

"A U.S. appeals court rejected airlines’ challenge to a regulation letting airport operators charge more at busy times of the day to reduce delays."

While ultimately the increased fees will be passed on the consumer, the airlines have been doing this themselves for years. Peak travel days are almost always higher priced then the others. I love how DL and AA made a stink about this. Pot and Kettle?


The best IFE: A window seat and a good book.
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Well what this could do amongst many things it make hub operations much more costly, as presumably such activity peaks could fall within higher pricing bands by airport authorities.

At the end of the day, its consumers that will be hurt by such variable airport pricing mechanisms.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6692 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Well what this could do amongst many things it make hub operations much more costly, as presumably such activity peaks could fall within higher pricing bands by airport authorities.

At the end of the day, its consumers that will be hurt by such variable airport pricing mechanisms.

The only airports that could and should do this are airports that have periods of extreme congestion like what EWR and JFK had in the evening hour before they had slots.

Ideally this peak period pricing should be implemented and the slots go away, or at least relaxed some. an 1 hr block time RJ flight has no business at JFK at 5pm, if there is ample demand, then they can pay extra,



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

I hope this ruling survives further court challenges. Peak pricing enables market mechanism to make the hidden costs of peak travel explicit. I think this may lead to larger aircraft during peak hours on domestic routes in the future.

User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6623 times:

Which airports will this really have an impact on?
JFK, EWR, LGA, and maybe even ORD are the obvious. Any others?
These are currently the airports really strained in capacity, but a lot of other airports are looking for some capacity to expand.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6587 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Thread starter):
While ultimately the increased fees will be passed on the consumer, the airlines have been doing this themselves for years. Peak travel days are almost always higher priced then the others. I love how DL and AA made a stink about this. Pot and Kettle?

Not just peak travel days, but also peak times. While it may not be beneficial to the consumer, is it any different than the airline industry or any other industry and also hypocritical of the airlines to complain about it when they themselves engage in this practice and have for some time?


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1746 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

And it could even work further if landing fees on off hours were lowered. Of course over time this will happen anyway. If prices were properly structured it would encourage larger aircraft during peak hours - part of fees would vary by weight as it is done now, the rest could vary as to amount of time they used to land, taxi, takeoff - maybe most of the fees in really critical times. During off hours the later could drop as low as zero. We might even see wide bodies coming back to intra-US flights. Gad!


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6549 times:

First of all, the airlines using peak pricing with air fares. Flying during morning and evening rush is more expensive than flying mid day or late evening.

Flying on a Monday or Friday, especially between business centers, is more expensive than flying mid week.

So, the airlines need to stop the whining.

I read not too long ago that the City of Chicago is upset with UA, because it still operates its ORD hub in banks, with a lot of flights arriving and departing at the top of the hour. Meanwhile, AA went to a rolling hub, spreading its operations more evenly throughout the day.

I would assume that the City may start pricing landing fees to spread operations evenly throughout the entire day, thus reducing heavy scheduling in the morning and evening rush. I would also bet we might see a scheme that tries to distribute operations evenly throughout any given hour, rather than bunching them at the top or bottom of the hour.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6464 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Thread starter):
While ultimately the increased fees will be passed on the consumer

It should, right? I mean, if you want to travel during peak time, you should pay more. There is peak and off peak pricing for taxis, trains, hotel rooms, movie tickets, etc.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
I hope this ruling survives further court challenges. Peak pricing enables market mechanism to make the hidden costs of peak travel explicit.

As long as there is a check mechanism in there that doesn't allow an airport with no peak time to declare a peak time anyway to boost revenue.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6411 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2):
RJ flight has no business at JFK at 5pm

I'd argue it has very much business by connecting either a smaller community to a major international gateway, or its a market that can support frequent service just not on larger gauge equipment.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 7):
I read not too long ago that the City of Chicago is upset with UA, because it still operates its ORD hub in banks, with a lot of flights arriving and departing at the top of the hour. Meanwhile, AA went to a rolling hub, spreading its operations more evenly throughout the day.

I would assume that the City may start pricing landing fees to spread operations evenly throughout the entire day, thus reducing heavy scheduling in the morning and evening rush. I would also bet we might see a scheme that tries to distribute operations evenly throughout any given hour, rather than bunching them at the top or bottom of the hour.

And in you example forcing United into a rolling hub could conceivably again hurt the consumer.
Gone are the nicely tightly packed connections, and now one must wait longer, or no longer have the connection that previously was available.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
As long as there is a check mechanism in there that doesn't allow an airport with no peak time to declare a peak time anyway to boost revenue.

Actually I hope Congress gets involved as such peak pricing is nothing more then a money grab some larger airport operators have come up with to take advantage of the manner US airline scheduling and airports have developed.

I see such pricing as being anti consumer and potentially hurting or reducing access.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineadh214 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6359 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
I see such pricing as being anti consumer and potentially hurting or reducing access.

I see peak pricing as pro consumer. By making some parts of the day more expensive, demand will spread out and delays will be minimized. This is ultimately the market mechanism at work.


Andrew


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3635 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6221 times:

"I'd argue it has very much business by connecting either a smaller community to a major international gateway, or its a market that can support frequent service just not on larger gauge equipment."

But you see, that argument has been used and abused at LGA and JFK for year by US, AA, and DL. It's an excuse to load up the airport with RJs and block carriers such as WN or B6 with bigger aircraft from flying in. This practice has been exposed and the day of reckoning for RJs at LGA and JFK during peak times is near.

There are ~82 operations per hour per slot restrictions at JFK. During peak times, there should be nothing less than a larger aircraft (100 seats? 90 seats? 75 seats?) taking a slot; if not you are not making the best use of my city's slots. That is a disadvantage to me and the other 18 million people that live in the area and the countless more who want to come there. I don't care who flies the plane (mainline or regional) but there needs to be a financial disadvantage to block a peak hour slot with a 37 seat aircraft to a place like ALB when there is frequent ground transportation available to such nearby places.

The only way around this is to do what ATL did and build a new runway. Until you do that, it will not be a free-market place in NYC. It is a slot-controlled, regulated environment, and the mass-populous needs those slots used in the most efficient way possible.


On another note, I am one of the few people on here that has publicly stated my pleasure at seeing the DL US slot swap get blocked.

If you are a New Yorker, own a business in NYC, or run the government in NYC, the best thing that can happen to us is for the US Terminal at LGA (all 22 gates) and the slots that go with it to go to an airline like WN or B6 that will fly larger aircraft all over the East Coast and MidWest much like US used to do 15 years ago from that same building.

Without adding one flight, LGA would go from handling 25 mil pax a year right into the mid 30s. What a boon to the local economy. Taxi drivers, hotels, eateries and shops in and around the airport, rental cars. That is the trickle down effect that many anti-govt posters on here love.

Great move by the govt to:

1. Block the US DL slot swap
2. Approve congestion pricing

If you want to see JFK and LGA use maximized, this is a great day.

Next we need a minimum size aircraft requirement.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17830 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6177 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11):
During peak times, there should be nothing less than a larger aircraft (100 seats? 90 seats? 75 seats?) taking a slot;

That would be the end of service to lots of politically sensitive smaller cities, since the little sense they make at peak times would make zero sense at off peak times. Congress' collective panties would suddenly be laden, and they'd instantly go from chastizing airlines for using RJs in NYC to railing airlines for dropping (RJ) service to their podunk towns.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11):
But you see, that argument has been used and abused at LGA and JFK for year by US, AA, and DL. It's an excuse to load up the airport with RJs and block carriers such as WN or B6 with bigger aircraft from flying in.

B6/WN/etc are likely never going to serve most of the places that AA/US/DL serve. ITH isn't landing an LCC anytime this decade, nor is DKR.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6170 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Thread starter):
While ultimately the increased fees will be passed on the consumer, the airlines have been doing this themselves for years. Peak travel days
are almost always higher priced then the others. I love how DL and AA made a stink about this. Pot and Kettle?
Quoting ckfred (Reply 7):
First of all, the airlines using peak pricing with air fares. Flying during morning and evening rush is more expensive than flying mid day or late evening.

Flying on a Monday or Friday, especially between business centers, is more expensive than flying mid week.

So, the airlines need to stop the whining.

              


However, it still remains to be seen if such pricing will be properly implemented. And remember that fees can also be dropped to below current levels at off-peak times to try to get pax to use airport facilities at times it is under-utilized. Spread out the usage over the day and it will save a lot of money.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6151 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
As long as there is a check mechanism in there that doesn't allow an airport with no peak time to declare a peak time anyway to boost revenue.

Actually I hope Congress gets involved as such peak pricing is nothing more then a money grab some larger airport operators have come up with to take advantage of the manner US airline scheduling and airports have developed.

I see such pricing as being anti consumer and potentially hurting or reducing access.

What's the incentive to charge peak pricing where there is no peak? I see none. You'll keep customers away when you have an empty airfield.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
What's the incentive to charge peak pricing where there is no peak? I see none. You'll keep customers away when you have an empty airfield.

Agreed. And you'd think that would be the end of the inquiry - it would be if airport managers were rational. Rationality isn't a very good assumption, but I don't know that the government should be in the business of keeping airport managers from taking stupid actions.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
B6/WN/etc are likely never going to serve most of the places that AA/US/DL serve. ITH isn't landing an LCC anytime this decade, nor is DKR.

No. But for most of these communities, shutting them out of DCA or LGA isn't shutting them out of NYC or WAS. I can see a case that ITH needs/deserves/ought to have service to NYC (though I don't necessarily agree). But I'm not sure why ITH ought to have service to both LGA and EWR, and congestion pricing is unlikely to do anything to EWR-ITH.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3180 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5773 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
B6/WN/etc are likely never going to serve most of the places that AA/US/DL serve. ITH isn't landing an LCC anytime this decade, nor is DKR.

Yes, but US is not gonna serve MSY/MCO/TPA/FLL/PBI/RSW/MDW....from LGA anymore, so let WN have it.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineGenYBusTrvlr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2):
RJ flight has no business at JFK at 5pm

I'd argue it has very much business by connecting either a smaller community to a major international gateway, or its a market that can support frequent service just not on larger gauge equipment.

Long time reader, first time poster, and this is the one that made me pay up!

Let's be clear about something, where someone lives is a choice! I choose to live in major cities because I enjoy a busy lifestyle, the culture, and the amenities. As a consequence, I pay more for just about everything and must make personal sacrifices. Others choose to live in a rural or small community because it appeals to them in some manner and those individuals typically enjoy a lower cost of living. The consequence for rural and small community residents is that they must sacrifice (or travel greater distance for) big city culture, amenities, and conveniences.

Big city residents understand and accept this paradigm; however, there always seems to be a disconnected, self-entitiled attitude expressed by residents of small and rural communities with regard to basic economic realities that makes me sick to the point of barf. Even worse, or legislative system, which under represents heavily populated areas, has embraced this self-entitled spirit and distorted our free markets. As a result I'm forced to subsidize telephone, high-speed broadband, roads, and airfare -- just to name a few -- for small and rural communities under the guise of essential services. Now I'm expected to rot on the runway in my, emphasis added, congested airport so that somebody else can have a convenient connection to their rural or small community-- I don't think so.

LAXintl -- your logic makes no sense IMO. Why should 250+ passengers on a wide body aircraft be inconvenienced for the benefit of 50 people on a regional jet? Please spare me the argument that those 50 passengers are connecting traffic for the larger plane -- I acknowledge that they are. However, a long, inconvenient, off-peak connection is the price rural and small community residents should have to pay as a result of where they choose to live. Similar logic can be applied to your small equipment, frequent service argument -- simply replace small/rural community with small city.


User currently offlineantoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1608 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Quoting GenYBusTrvlr (Reply 17):

Your logic also has some flaws...

People do not choose where they are born... where they find the person they fall in love with... where their workplace requires them to move (this one is especially true in certain fields).

Many people do not have the job skills that are necessary to land a job that would make it possible for them to move to and survive in a city like New York even if they wanted to.

I'll grant you a lot of things don't pan out evenly, but you're displaying far more of an attitude of entitlement in your post than I've ever seen from someone living in a rural area.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineGenYBusTrvlr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5037 times:

Quoting antoniemey (Reply 18):

You're correct, people do not choose where they're born; staying there is a choice, same goes for soul mates. Also, jobs are not assigned as of the last time I checked. If you don't like the location, get a new one. As for skills, I can assure you that New York City has jobs at all skill levels. The people who clean toilets in office towers "survive." However, lower skill/income individuals sometimes choose to live outside of cities because it allows them to experience a higher quality of life given their means. It's a convenience / cost of living trade off.


User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

Dear SkyHigh Airlines,
Please note that if you land between 17:00 and 17:59 your landing fee will be double.
-Your local airport

Dear Your Local Airport:
Thank you, we have adjusted our 20 operations to arrive between the hours of 18:01 and 18:10, we understand we will pay the "regular" price.
-Sky High Airlines

While in theory, peak pricing sounds good. Airlines will play the game big time to save 5 cents. The airlines regulate the pieces of toilet paper they put on a plane. You don't think they will play the game? It won't be revenue positive for airport. It will be good for alternate airports as well. And while someone says, good, move over to Midway, Love, Ontario, the reality is that O'Hare, LAX or DFW needs to bring in a specified amount of revenue to operate successfully. Peak pricing will not increase revenue. But hey, at least Sky High moved the problem form 17:00 to 18:00.

I think airports will be foolish to adopt peak pricing. They won't be revenue positive. But like everything else in this country they will jump on board and find out the hard way.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting GenYBusTrvlr (Reply 17):
Long time reader, first time poster, and this is the one that made me pay up!
Quoting GenYBusTrvlr (Reply 17):
LAXintl -- your logic makes no sense IMO.

First welcome a A.net.

So using your argument big airports should be restricted to flights serving only major metro areas as they are more deserving and the hundreds of rural communities in American don't deserve access to major airport and the greater national air transportation system?

Franky much of Americas commerce and populace lives in secondary smaller cities, and the entire transportation system since the advent of hubs-spokes is reliant on such flow to work.
You shut out these small communities many flights between large metro areas wont have enough bodies to support themselves either.

As much as you dispute my logic, I don't understand yours either and never have considered a New York City resident having more rights or be more deserving then then a fellow American in Syracuse.
Quoting SuperDash (Reply 20):
They won't be revenue positive.

Remember anyhow that US airports cannot make profits technically, so you are right it will be a zero sum game, just the deck chairs will be moved around.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineGenYBusTrvlr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4854 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):

I'm not suggesting that Syracuse or any other location should be denied access. I'm simply supporting the assertion made by RL757PVD that a RJ has no business on a heavily congested runway such as JFK during peak hours unless the yield on that flight is so high that it it can cover the cost of a premium takeoff or landing slot. (which it may)

It's a fact that only x planes can take off and land per hour. In an efficient market place, if the demand for peak slots is > the available supply prices should be allowed to rises until demand = supply resulting in less profitable flights being reallocated to times of less demand which are therefore cheaper.


User currently offlinespinner145 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

This is, in my opinion, a great development. Airport slots are scarce goods, and there needs to be a way to allocate these slots. And like most things in a market economy, the way to allocate scarce resources is price. But in this case, the result isn't that the poor will be shut out, but rather that even more people will fly during peak hours. This is because if a slot is more expensive, the airline needs to find a way to make up this increased cost. They will find it much easier to spread the extra cost over 250 passengers flying on 767 than to spread that same amount among 50 passengers on a CRJ. So they will assign their biggest birds to the most lucrative routes during the busiest hours, meaning more bodies will be flying where they want to when want to.

Of course there are downsides. People who fly smaller jets will likely be forced to connect from less busy airports or to fly at less convenient times. Ticket prices during peak hours will rise as airlines inevitably pass these costs along (although as others have noted, airlines already charge passengers more for these tickets while screaming bloody murder that airports can't charge airlines more to fly during these times).

But the current system letting airlines schedule their departure times for whenever they like is clearly broken. It leads overscheduling, which leads to delays, and the system clogs doesn't give the slots to those who can put them to their most desired use. Charging (ideally by an auction) for slots during the most desirable times will make sure that the airlines who can put the slots to their best use will get those slots.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3635 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4058 times:

"B6/WN/etc are likely never going to serve most of the places that AA/US/DL serve. ITH isn't landing an LCC anytime this decade, nor is DKR."

That's right . . . because very few people fly to ITH. If the LGA-ITH route were wiped out tomorrow due to the landing fee increase, few would care. Now, I know it Ithica, they would be very upset. But as long as ITH is connected to less-crowded connecting hubs, they can reach NYC by air via connection OR they can drive, take a bus, or a car to the local Amtrak station with service to Penn.

LGA/JFK/EWR are not large, mid-continent connecting hubs with the sole purpose of having 5 flights a day to every burg you can throw a stone at. All three airports are old, with antiquated layouts, and severe space constraints on the ground and in the air. EWR and JFK are restricted to 82 operations per hour. LGA is less than that. That means that the ITHs and ACKs of the world should see curtailed service. It also means that instead of operating 15 flights a day from LGA to ORD on MD 80s (thank you AA) perhaps bringing back 767s or 757s on the route with 10 flights a day.

Perhaps airlines will feel that ITH is a cash cow that needs to be served or ORD needs 20 flights a day on smaller aircraft. That's their decision. But they will pay a premium to do that during peak hours and that's a good thing as it will influence space-clogging decisions.


25 MaverickM11 : You're just swapping one carrier for another, not necessarily with lower fares, and by no means increasing competition. And you've lost all the conne
26 GSPSPOT : Why would RJ (or other) flights to smaller markets necessarily go away? Couldn't they be re-scheduled to operate at the non-peak, lower-priced times
27 Chase : I agree with GenYBusTrvlr. And I live in a podunk midwestern college town (because I chose to marry a woman who wants to live here in order to earn he
28 KDEN : Okay, curtail services to airports which are geographically very close to another with service. Fine, consolidate some of the ITH service with SYR. W
29 frmrCapCadet : This seems a good overall explanation. Airports could do things for those with longer waits, whether because they fly regionals into the hub at cheap
30 LAXintl : If the system is broken, its not because of the airlines. If JFK authorizes 100 operations per hour, the airlines schedule 100 flights based on what
31 Flighty : Truly. If it is "unfair" to price airport slots for congestion, then it should be illegal for airlines to alter prices depending on passenger loads.
32 jfklganyc : "And you've lost all the connectivity to smaller cities that helped fill those US planes to MSY/MCO/TPA" But US doesn't serve those cities anymore fro
33 flylku : This is a money grab by airports under the guise of reducing congestion which it will not. Although, were I an airline and my hub airports decided to
34 Flighty : You are right that that is the core issue. However, the question is, which 80. Should it be awarded based on political power, such as the 1950s USSR
35 GSPSPOT : Am I crazy here? Isn't the point of this to encourage airlines to schedule flights at different times of day to ease congestion? Why couldn't the sam
36 DLPMMM : True, but it is the consumers that always get hosed by imposition of any regulation or fee. Absolutely, and removal of slot restrictions should be a
37 LAXintl : Here is the deal. This stemmed basically from the wishes of PANYNJ. What will happen is the number of movement will not change, just their pricing. I
38 commavia : I personally think this isn't a bad thing. I'm a big believer in the free market and competition and I think that this would, as others have suggested
39 ikramerica : Or go back to the days of milkruns. LGA-ALB-ITH-SYR on a CR9. It'll be an extra hour for the SYR pax, and 30 for the ITH pax, but big deal. Beats dri
40 commavia : I doubt it. Any connecting traffic that would have moved over LGA would by that point - rather than doing a multi-stop milkrun - just shifting to con
41 MaverickM11 : US doesn't serve a lot of those destinations because fares are so cheap they can't possibly maintain them. The express/regional operation is only bid
42 KDEN : I completely agree with that. I could easily imagine either the same amount of traffic between the two airports (swap the four DL connection flights
43 ScottB : BWI is indeed an excellent example. In 1994, just after WN started service to BWI, passenger traffic at BWI reached what was then an all-time high of
44 jfklganyc : "Here is the deal. This stemmed basically from the wishes of PANYNJ. What will happen is the number of movement will not change, just their pricing. I
45 commavia : Absolutely. And they should have every right to do that. If the airports want to try and manipulate demand at certain times of the day versus others
46 Post contains links LAXintl : Variable pricing, or punitive pricing could make it much more costly to 1)operate some services which 2) has to get passed onto consumers. Ultimately
47 frmrCapCadet : I repeat, part of landing views involves: Wear and tear on runways and the resultant maintainance Time and material for use of facilities - gate time
48 MaverickM11 : There's no question that the volume of passengers increases, but it did at the expense of connectivity, and I think the towns losing all service will
49 ScottB : It could make it more costly or less costly, to be honest. The airline could end up operating to some smaller communities during the cheaper off-peak
50 GSPSPOT : I love this idea! Same thing could work in many areas. Planes such as the CR9 are certainly MUCH more efficient and cost-effective to operate than th
51 ScottB : But there are generally better options for connectivity than LGA. For a community like ALB, service to any one of EWR/PHL/IAD/DTW/ATL/CLT/ORD opens u
52 MaverickM11 : Connectivity is a bad choice of word; I mean nonstop service to NYC or WAS. Your average small airport director wants nonstop service to a major hub,
53 ScottB : Peak-hour pricing doesn't preclude the viability of non-stop service to NYC or WAS, although it certainly may mean that peak-hour non-stop service is
54 flylku : Do you fly for business? It's Friday afternoon and you are in OKC on business having been there all week and you just want to get home. The client wi
55 Flighty : Yes, and that would solve 90% of the NY delay problems, and most of the USA delay problems. That's what we are talking about, moving a few RJ and pro
56 spinner145 : Agreed, I don't think that it is the fault of the airlines. The system lets them overschedule without penalty, so they will naturally schedule depart
57 Daysleeper : I'm still half asleep, so sorry if this doesn't make sense - but why don't they just reverse the current system during peak times? Eg. Off Peak Slot P
58 ckfred : Maybe the airlines will make some hard decisions about the number of flights and aircraft types they fly. Out of ORD, AA flies 10 times to LAX (9 738s
59 genybustrvlr : I couldn't agree more. Smaller communities want/desire these flights but don't need/deserve them -- unfortunately for the rest of us, they tend to be
60 PPVRA : Airlines have operated variable pricing since deregulation and fares have come down. Which is inefficient and thus bad for the economy. This is unlik
61 DLPMMM : Slot leases end up as money grabs by politicians and not a market mechanism. Variable pricing by time of day by the airport operator is the most effi
62 frmrCapCadet : And remember the law of unintended consequences. Congestion pricing will have some, on the road as well as at airports. Electric/hybrid automobiles wi
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...
Airbus To Assemble A/C In USA? OK Not Really... posted Tue Dec 19 2006 16:36:58 by Tak
Canadian Airport Statistics So Far In '09 posted Mon Mar 30 2009 13:43:03 by Thenoflyzone
Major Airport Terminals To Open In 2009 posted Sat Jan 24 2009 19:37:04 by Addd
Hong Kong Airport Reports Sharp Drop In Traffic posted Sun Oct 19 2008 07:47:37 by Oa260
Man Nabbed At Airport With 200 Birds In Bag posted Tue Sep 30 2008 07:29:20 by MadameConcorde
Frequent Flyer Seats Open Up In USA! posted Thu Sep 18 2008 17:30:47 by REALDEAL
New Airport To Be Built In Romania (Brasov) posted Sat Apr 19 2008 07:42:05 by Vio
Hop In On BA In USA Domestic Flight? posted Wed Jan 23 2008 09:07:10 by Scotland1979
Peak Pricing Proposed For LAX. posted Sun Jan 20 2008 14:07:46 by LAXintl
It's (almost) Official: A330-200F To Build In USA posted Fri Jan 11 2008 07:35:52 by Observer