Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Too Many Regional Jets At LGA?  
User currently offlineat From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1037 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12886 times:

Flying in and out of La Guardia recently, I was stunned to see the number of regional jets swarming the tarmac.
Given the saturation of the terminals and the delays at LGA, are regional jets really an optimal use of the airport?

Obviously the airlines are using them because it is profitable or makes sense for certain routes; but from an airport perspective, do regional jets contribute to the inefficiency of the airport?

And if so, has the Port Authority considered a model of inverting the fee structure whereby the landing fees are inversely, rather than positively related to the weight/size of the aircraft? That would provide an incentive for airlines to use larger than smaller aircraft, but without making it mandatory, so airlines can still have the choice of using any aircraft they wish.

Obviously this might be too simplistic a model as for some routes only a Regional Jet is appropriate, and for others, airlines may prefer to have multiple frequencies on smaller aircraft to serve business travelers rather than a single flight with more capacity.

What are people's thoughts?

And on a tangential note, I have to say I am very impressed with the modernization of the Delta terminal at LGA (the actual terminal, not the portion of the neighboring USAirways terminal they are using). The IPAD stations in particular are great.

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9337 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12881 times:

A plane is a plane -- whether or not it seats 50 people or 100 people, it takes up space, needs a departure slot, an arrival slot, etc.

Delta's move to replace 50 seaters with 70 and 100 seats is nice ... but when you think about it ... adding the estimated 4 million people per year to the airport - it's going to be rather crowded. Longer wait for security, taxi's, and to stand in line for the crummy concession offerings. Joy.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4662 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12834 times:

Last year those Regional Jets were Sabb 340's and DH8's so its a step in the right direction at least...


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12794 times:

I think the number of RJs has actually dropped drastically over that last few years.

I do not consider teh E Jets RJs...as they are not the problem, but the solution.

RJs of 50 seats or less have been a thorn in LGAs side. As US airlines, particularly US Airways shrunk post 9/11, they decided to slot squat with cheap, outsourced RJs.

This was and is an inefficient use of slots.

What this does for NYC and the PANYNJ is lower the economic activity from the airport. If an airport has 1000 slots per day and 50% are being used by small aircraft vs larger aircraft there are less people moving through the airport: less people arriving and getting into taxis, staying at hotels, going to a Bway show, conducting business.

It got so bad in 2004 that there was a push to limit aircraft with less than 70 seats...but it went nowhere.

Since then, US has shut down most of its LGA operation...and that helps. DL is using the slots a bit more efficiently.

AA has upguaged a good chunk of its Eagle flying from 135/140/145 to CRJ700s. That helps

B6 has expanded to 16 slots on mainline aircraft...that helps

AirTran and WN combined now give LGA another large operator with all mainline ops ...that helps.

UA and AA are using fewer 757s and more 738s and 320s...that doesn't help, but it keeps it mainline.


User currently offlineat From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1037 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12793 times:

Quoting stlgph (Reply 1):
Delta's move to replace 50 seaters with 70 and 100 seats is nice ... but when you think about it ... adding the estimated 4 million people per year to the airport - it's going to be rather crowded. Longer wait for security, taxi's, and to stand in line for the crummy concession offerings. Joy.

True. But that's if you're replacing one 50 seater with one 70 or 100 seater. But what if you are replacing three 50 seater flights with 2 75 seater flights? Still carry the same number of passengers, but now you need gate space and departure slots for one less aircraft.


User currently offlinetoltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12738 times:

Regional jets allow the carriers to serve markets that could not support mainline aircraft. The smaller aircraft allow airlines to meet customer demand for service from LGA to those cities.

User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9337 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12608 times:

Quoting at (Reply 4):
True. But that's if you're replacing one 50 seater with one 70 or 100 seater. But what if you are replacing three 50 seater flights with 2 75 seater flights? Still carry the same number of passengers, but now you need gate space and departure slots for one less aircraft.

you think an airline like Delta is going to consolidate 3 50 seat flights into 2 and give up a slot?

oh boy...

Quoting toltommy (Reply 5):

Regional jets allow the carriers to serve markets that could not support mainline aircraft. The smaller aircraft allow airlines to meet customer demand for service from LGA to those cities.

and that happens everywhere. not every city has to have nonstop service to New York's Laguardia Airport.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 weeks ago) and read 12558 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 3):

I don't think US shutting down most of their LGA ops made that big a difference. All those DH8s and SF34s are now just CR2s and E145s.

Also, the number of RJs has dropped drastically in the last few years, but it is still enough to cause problems.

I was at CHS last week waiting for my mothers WN flight to come in and I heard them make an announcment that DL6066 from LGA had left the gate but was not in the air yet. That was at 5:45pm. At 6:45pm, they started letting people going to LGA get on the half-full DL DC-9 going to ATL, and connect them to LGA. At 7:15, they finally made an announcment to the remaining six passengers going to LGA that their plane was in the air. The taxiway congestion caused the plane to depart so lte that the connection from ATL that they put people on beat the ERJ-145 from CHS but 25 minutes! Obviously there is still a big problem with overcrowding at LGA.

What would help the overcrowding would be the addition of another taxiway, but there is no room for one, because there are too many terminals. I've been saying it for years, and ll this just proves it to be true: LaGuardia is too big for its size. There are too many terminals and too many planes for an airport that size.


User currently offlineat From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1037 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 weeks ago) and read 12385 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 7):
What would help the overcrowding would be the addition of another taxiway, but there is no room for one, because there are too many terminals. I've been saying it for years, and ll this just proves it to be true: LaGuardia is too big for its size. There are too many terminals and too many planes for an airport that size.

Yes I completely agree. That's what prompted my original question though. Given that it's too crowded, is reducing the number of aircraft via encouraging use of bigger rather than smaller aircraft viable, and what is the best way to do it?


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 weeks ago) and read 12343 times:

Quoting at (Reply 8):

That probabaly is the best solution, but where would they get the bigger aircraft? The larger aircraft are being put on routes that suit them more and require a larger aircraft. I suspect that, like others have said, as we see the 50-seaters dwindle away, we'll see more 70-seaters come into service at LGA. It's just a matter of waiting it out. I


User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 weeks ago) and read 12332 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 3):
I do not consider teh E Jets RJs...as they are not the problem, but the solution.

Yet they're still flown by crews making as low as $23/hour.... I'd call THAT a problem. But that's for a different discussion entirely.


User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9337 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12307 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 9):

You won't see less slots anytime soon.

The more planes that touch the ground, the more revenue for the government.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1555 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12270 times:

As was mentioned, incentivizing carriers to swap RJs for large RJs (CR7s, E-Jets, Q400s, etc.) and mainline would help a bit, but previous efforts have gone nowhere. Obviously some markets will never support that, but surely a majority of markets could be shuffled to accomodate such a move. It does seem a bit excessive to fly 7x 50 seaters, say, when you could fly 5 70 seaters for the same pax count and only lose a few hours of frequency options (say 5 total between the two lost flights). I don't really see how say 6-8 flights is that much more convenient that 3-5 using larger planes to make up for lost capacity if needed -- for most markets.

But all told, the biggest problem IMHO is slot squatting, like the old US model of 20x props and RJs to PHL -- utterly ridiculous by any measure. I will grant that my above argument may not go far given the demand for certain markets, but certainly there can be some incentive for upgauging routes. Perhaps a mandated average percentage of flights on 70+ seat (stock, so you'd allow for UAX 170s for instance) or better planes, or else revoke slots?


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4057 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12175 times:

It's not inefficient at all. LGA is by and large a business-oriented airport. Business travelers value frequency a hell of a lot more than how big the plane is, and there would be nothing more inefficient than flying mainline aircraft on the frequencies that those business pax desire. They would be flying half empty and could not be used on routes where density is more important than frequency.

DCA is also another airport where this is the case, although with a semi-hub there, and with more perimeter exemptions, gauge I believe is larger here than at LGA.

If the airlines had an infinite number of aircraft to use without worrying about how their use on route X will be a hindrance to the rest of the route structure, and if they had the cash to pay mainline pilots to fly all those frequencies, maybe it would be less of an issue.

Edit: I'm not referring to any specific high-frequency shuttle-type routes, just LGA as a whole.

[Edited 2012-07-31 09:49:28]

User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11833 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 13):
It's not inefficient at all. LGA is by and large a business-oriented airport. Business travelers value frequency a hell of a lot more than how big the plane is, and there would be nothing more inefficient than flying mainline aircraft on the frequencies that those business pax desire. They would be flying half empty and could not be used on routes where density is more important than frequency.

Then perhaps the solution is to reduce the number of available slots.

Look, airline operations at a crowded airport are rarely about what anyone "desires". It's about the best use of limited resources. It's about compromise.

The question is whether RJ's are the best use of the limited resource that is LGA's ground and air space. For business passengers, they may be. But business passengers don't really have a vote, and they're not the only people affected. An RJ that takes up airspace around LGA affects flights coming out of EWR and JFK too, and those flights might be "more important" in that they generate more revenue for the airline and by extension the port authority as well as the city, state and the FAA.

In an ideal world, everyone would be able to fly whatever airplane they wanted at any time of day from anywhere. Obviously, we all have to make choices, and airlines and airport authorities have to make them as well.

The main reason for the prevalence of RJ's to begin with is that airlines were afraid of losing their slots if they didn't keep them filled, and as you say, they couldn't fill up larger planes. So maybe the airlines just don't really need all those slots.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11597 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 13):
DCA is also another airport where this is the case, although with a semi-hub there, and with more perimeter exemptions, gauge I believe is larger here than at LGA.

But again, DCA has more space to put planes on the ground. DCA has more holding bays, or areas that can be improvised as holding bays, whereas LGA, as far as I know, has none (Or maybe one that I don't know of).


User currently offlineandrew50 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hard to believe any U.S. airport could have more regional jets than IAH!

User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9751 times:

When did you notice?

User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9277 times:

Quoting at (Reply 8):
Given that it's too crowded, is reducing the number of aircraft via encouraging use of bigger rather than smaller aircraft viable, and what is the best way to do it?

One reason for all the RJs is that Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the last decade in response to littler cities that want LGA service. If there's a slot that can only be used to one of these cities, the airlines are going to fill it with a plane that is suitably-sized.


User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8613 times:

If there is a problem here, the answer is simple: fewer slots.

The problem would be: more movements than the airport and airspace can handle under common weather conditions.

if that is the problem, then the cleanest answer (besides re-organising the airspace and nextgen ATC) is to simply reduce the number of slots. The airlines can then figure out the most efficient way to use that number of slots.


User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8097 times:

Quoting at (Thread starter):
And if so, has the Port Authority considered a model of inverting the fee structure whereby the landing fees are inversely, rather than positively related to the weight/size of the aircraft? That would provide an incentive for airlines to use larger than smaller aircraft, but without making it mandatory, so airlines can still have the choice of using any aircraft they wish.

They might have considered it but smartly did not implement the consideration. Such plans are unjustly discriminatory, would violate the airport's Grant Assurances and would run counter to case law on the issue.

Quoting at (Reply 8):
Yes I completely agree. That's what prompted my original question though. Given that it's too crowded, is reducing the number of aircraft via encouraging use of bigger rather than smaller aircraft viable, and what is the best way to do it?

It depends on your goal. If your goal is to reduce the amount of aircraft traffic, then the solution is to reduce the number of slots. If your goal is to free up airspace, then the best solution is for the FAA to modernise the airspace in the Northeast--something the FAA attempted to do that was later killed by other interests. If your goal is to increase the size of the aircraft using LGA, then the Port Authority should consider offering incentives for the use of mainline aircraft to destinations.

Quoting at (Reply 4):
True. But that's if you're replacing one 50 seater with one 70 or 100 seater. But what if you are replacing three 50 seater flights with 2 75 seater flights? Still carry the same number of passengers, but now you need gate space and departure slots for one less aircraft.

Slots are too valuable to give up for no return. AA tried that tactic a few years ago, said they were "retiring" a bunch of slots that served no more purpose. The FAA didn't allow it. Slots operate under a "use it or lose it" system. The airline either paid money to get the slots or could receive money by selling the slots to another operator. That is why you see airlines operating way too many flights to destinations that don't really need the service (US's 18 or however many daily flights LGA-PHL as an example) simply as 'slot holders.'

But if the FAA attempted to remove slots, you would hear a couple of things: 1) the angry screams of airlines; 2) the running of lobbyists to Congress to get the politicians to intervene; and 3) the delighted cheers of the lawyers who would be litigating this case and its appeals in court for years at a good hourly rate.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7103 times:

There can be many ways to solve this, not allowing more flights to be scheduled than the number of ops can handle would be a good start. You can act on pricing to encourage larger aircraft. NextGen ATC in the NY area would help, but it has to be accompanied by slot pricing/restriction measures, otherwise the new capacity will simply serve to add even more RJ's. And to be truly effective, all inititatives should be coordinated at a NY-wide level (+EWR and JFK).

No airline dares to take the first step because any slots they give up to make operations more efficient would simply be taken by a competitor. Therefore authorities must come in and do their job - regulate - in an equal way for all involved.


User currently offlineBC77008 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

Quoting stlgph (Reply 1):

Delta's move to replace 50 seaters with 70 and 100 seats is nice ... but when you think about it ... adding the estimated 4 million people per year to the airport - it's going to be rather crowded. Longer wait for security, taxi's, and to stand in line for the crummy concession offerings. Joy.

I agree, I love New York, but LaGuardia is a piece of filthy garbage. The person that designed it must have been on crack, hence we have New York-LaGarbage airport.



"He waited his whole damn life to take that flight. And as the plane crashed down he thought 'Well isn't this nice...'"
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1555 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6485 times:

Food for thought: is this more due to a policy/enforecment failure on the airport end to regulate things (however that comes about), or of the numerous small markets that clamor for service to NYC that can only fill 50 seaters at best? FWIW I'm not bashing small markets wanting air service, but rather which side is really to blame. For instance, I don't necessarily blame the airline if they have come to agreement with Small Town X to provide service to LGA on ERJs (multiply that by every small market that wants service), but OTOH when you have 20x LGA-PHL on small planes that seems like a failure on the regulatory end to me. LGA-ORD has proven able to sustain roughly 30x daily on weekdays, all on E-Jets or better, so there is demonstrable heavy demand and good utilization (not relying on 50 seaters), but it strains credulity to believe that there is any rational explanation on US's part for why they need to fly to PHL 20x (I know this varies but it's been around there recently) if they can only manage it on tiny planes.

User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9337 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6317 times:

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 22):
I agree, I love New York, but LaGuardia is a piece of filthy garbage. The person that designed it must have been on crack, hence we have New York-LaGarbage airport.

Well back in the day, it served its purpose. It was hastily built when then Mayor LaGuardia had to fly into Newark and thought it was total b.s. he couldn't fly into New York City itself. The took a tiny beach airport and took as much space as they could get and voila -- we have LaGuardia Airport. The airport was built for the 1930's, not for the 21st century.

Today it remains a nightmare to get stuck and delayed in. Concessions basically suck - and if a ton of flights get cancelled and you're at the airport - god bless you if you can get a taxi, on a bus, or even if you call a car service, good luck on them finding you. When all the flights got cancelled the night of the 18th, I waited for the rain to stop and then started walking down the street. Much better results.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
25 JBAirwaysFan : Reducing the number of slots isn't so easy either. There is a never-ending argument as to who is the true owner of the slots. If the DOT mandates a re
26 apodino : Some people call the LGA-PHL flights on US slot holders, but that flight is always consistently full with 50 passengers, and from what I have seen, th
27 LHCVG : Fair enough. My complaint is more focused on the ludicrous nature of 20ish flights a day on a route that short using small planes since they contribu
28 Flighty : If having too many flights is the problem, reduce the number of slots at LGA. All flights sacrifieced will be RJ flights. There is plenty of room to
29 Post contains images rwy04lga : Just think what it would be like if every DL or UA slot was a 767-400. Very efficient use of airspace, but hardly possible. The first 2 ATL flights s
30 tharanga : There's language in the CFR about this. Somewhere it makes it clear that the airlines do not own the slots, I think. I did find this, on a quick sear
31 spiritair97 : Yes if you think about the 20-miles radius between EWR, JFK, and LGA, plus TTN aad ISP, and FRG and HPN, and SWF. All of these airports are within a
32 LHCVG : I think this idea is going to be the key to solving things at LGA. Flat out capping slots or capacity is not without problems, such as disenfranchisi
33 stlgph : Giving up slots is a great idea and all - but as I said before -- less planes coming and going means less landing fees coming in and that means the mo
34 LHCVG : Wouldn't/couldn't this be solved by variable fees based on aircraft weight/size? Fewer planes, but larger planes can bring in more per flight, thus c
35 stlgph : Good idea in the head, but not that easy in reality. You start cutting flights and the second battle after higher airfares is politicians squabbling
36 LHCVG : I agree, but aren't these separate issues? The funding is easily solved by making it up on larger planes, but politicians squabbling is omnipresent,
37 Corinthians : This has been tried before and failed miserably. The BAA does this at LHR (although they do it just to increase passenger count so more people can us
38 LHCVG : I don't fault them for flying a route where they fill the plane and make money - I fault them because they fly less than 100mi route so many times a
39 stlgph : Again, much easier said than done. If every airplane landed at LaGuardia that is 50 seats suddenly becomes 100 plus (per the wishes of many here, or
40 at : Can someone in the know advise on where the bottlenecks at LGA primarily are? Is it terminal or gate space? Tarmac Space? Runways? etc ? Only semi-rel
41 Corinthians : LGA is bottlenecked everywhere. The airport area is too small, which makes taxiing congested. The runways intersect in a not so optimal spot and this
42 LHCVG : I don't know about others, but I have repeatedly taken pains to convey that I'm not against 50 seaters, just 50 seaters when they unreasonably contri
43 HPRamper : An upgauge would result in a drop in frequency which may well drive away those high yield business pax. In the end, it's not the responsibility of the
44 ckfred : But think back to the 70s, 80s, and 90s, when TWA, AA, UA, and DL often used L-1011s, DC-10s, and 767s to ORD, DTW, ATL, DFW, and STL. I wonder how t
45 stlgph : ...which is why LaGuardia became more regulated to begin with.
46 mogandoCI : Because back then frequencies were sensible. Today's travelers insist on getting onto the plane 30 minutes earlier (because *only* hourly frequency w
47 JBAirwaysFan : Yeah, but it still gets tricky. Bankruptcy courts have historically found slots to be assets belonging to the airline. It's very messy, and despite t
48 Flighty : Travelers are not, in any way, making that bargain. "Smoothly running airspace" is not an option ticket buyers are given. That is a government policy
49 exFWAOONW : uhh, one of the design requirements for the DC10 was that it could serve LGA. I think I know a desert where one could find a couple... yep. When airl
50 texan : Not consistently. And the 1st Circuit held in favour of the FAA. So again, there's just no telling. Texan
51 Corinthians : DL used to fly their 764s to LGA, but stopped. What's the maximum weight that LGA's runways can handle?
52 r2rho : Frequency frequency... I hear this too often in the US. Frequency is good up to a certain point. What happens in LGA goes beyond reason, and the "freq
53 stlgph : In all the 'business travelers' that I've come across personally in my occupation, yes, they like having the frequency there because their day is lit
54 Flighty : Of course not... it is also more expensive and unprofitable (in terms of CASM and delay costs) for airlines. But they must squat on the slots they we
55 Cubsrule : Business travelers - even business travelers who are savvy about the industry - have to take the block times at face value because it's the best info
56 tan flyr : Agreed..If airlined worked a lot harder at maintaining ontime departures customers would not "demand" flights every hour on the hour or whatever just
57 Cubsrule : No business traveler I know counts on delays. Block times, especially to and from the northeast, generally account for tarmac gridlock. Most business
58 stlgph : But for the most part - the schedules are pretty reliable. Unless there's something blowing through like a hurricane, snow, or a bad rainstorm, for th
59 Cubsrule : I think that's right. But it's important to remember that block times at an airport like LGA are going to move together. So if we got rid of 30 perce
60 stlgph : Pipedream. No way could you ever cut 30% of LGA slots and think that would ever work.
61 Flighty : You are speaking about politics? A 30% cut at LGA and similar at EWR would be a godsend. RJ traffic mentioned here would be curtailed. Pax count woul
62 jfklganyc : "If every airplane landed at LaGuardia that is 50 seats suddenly becomes 100 plus (per the wishes of many here, or even 70 plus), the airport would be
63 stlgph : Sure the US Air terminal was filled with 737's and 727's at every gate - but they weren't running as many flights that Delta is now. Go back and coun
64 tan flyr : Cubs...Really? No one counts on delays? Yes the schedules are padded to the roof at certain times. Every time I have flown into or out of EWR delays
65 stlgph : NYC traffic reports typically don't report on airport delays until they reach 90 minutes or more. If you fly out of NYC, you can expect to be delayed
66 HPRamper : I think it's a little silly that even after US gave up all those slots to DL - which is also using regional aircraft - the fingers all still point at
67 Cubsrule : Yup. No one I know plans for a 2 or 3 hour delay. We pad reasonably, but not for an absurd delay and not exclusively on the east coast. If the drive
68 JBAirwaysFan : Like I said, it's messy.
69 Corinthians : That's true. And don't forget that airlines list slots on their balance sheets as part of their assets. Furthermore, when the FAA auctioned off those
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...
Too Many Go Arounds At SFO Today posted Sat Mar 25 2000 06:36:12 by SFO
Delta To Dominate LGA, With Regional Jets? posted Sun Dec 18 2011 05:59:28 by dtwpilot225
MEA Looking At 50-70 Seat Regional Jets posted Sun Jan 29 2006 02:32:50 by BA
Too Many Alarms At LHR! posted Mon Aug 18 2003 22:12:13 by AMS
Too Many Airlines In The US posted Thu Jul 12 2012 08:13:17 by brilondon
AE Flights At LGA - Broad Question posted Tue Jul 10 2012 18:06:03 by seat1a
DL At LGA Connectivity (take 2) posted Wed Jun 13 2012 14:40:18 by SHUPirate1
MD-10 At LGA? posted Wed Jun 6 2012 14:54:37 by spiritair97
Omni 757 At LGA This Morning posted Mon May 28 2012 06:45:54 by planeguy727
DL Expands At LGA -PHASE I Complete posted Sun Mar 25 2012 09:20:18 by peachair