jetbluefan1
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:38 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...7-09-jfk-cover_N.htm#uslPageReturn

This article gives a pretty in-depth look at the reasons for the congestion problems at JFK and in the New York area. Further, it explains what is being done presently to remedy the situation. Very interesting.

Thoughts?

JetBluefan1
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Thread starter):
This article gives a pretty in-depth look at the reasons for the congestion problems at JFK and in the New York area.

My comment in there as "Dave in SLC" pointed out how there are too many smaller aircraft such as CRJs have proliferated these airports. The problems aren't just what DL and B6 have done to JFK, LGA is an extremely popular airport with business travelers since it is closest to midtown Manhattan. EWR is a huge CO hub, and like the other two is prone to weather related delays as well as overall traffic at times. Go to the FAA main flight delay page: http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp and you'll notice that at least one (LGA) or just as likely two NYC airports have yellow, orange or red symbols indicating problems. Frequently I've observed all three showing red symbols. The FAA as well as the NY/NJ Port Authority need to do something about air traffic and travel into those three airports. Purchasing Stewart won't solve the problems, neither acquiring ISP will do any good either for that matter. I for one think a ratio formula for small CRJs along with a perimeter rule needs to come into play for all three airports.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
787EWR
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:41 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:20 am

Great Article.

Thanks.

There have been a number of threads on the air traffic congestion in the NY area.

First, I think it is a credit to the professionalism and hard work of the Air Traffic controllers and what they have to deal with on a daily basis, not to mention when there are weather problems.

I also think that the number of regional jets in the region(not that many out of Kennedy) is a major problem. Comair, US Airways(Partners), Eagle and Continental partners simply flood LaGuardia and Newark with regional jets. I read an article in the NY Times where the author proposed forcing the airlines to use these regionals only during the "non-rush" hours between 10am and 4pm. Any services after that would utilize larger jets. He also proposed reducing the hourly service to major hubs like Atlanta, Chicago and Dallas every other hour and using at least a 150 seat planes for service(All three airports can handle larger planes, although LGA might have an issue on a hot day like today)
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:02 am

But mandating big aircraft at those times will just result in mainline aircraft with 40 pax on them !!! That is an improper regulatory style.

You want to fix the problem, reduce the flying at EWR, certainly TEB, and LGA. Cut the number of slots! That is exactly what effective government must do. Set up a flight regime that CAN work. Leave it up to the airlines what equipment to use and where they should fly it. RJs have an important role. But by tightening slot restrictions, you will gently push airlines away from mediocre, redundant RJ services to NYC...
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:05 am

Wow, a USA Today aviation article that at least looks like the author did some homework.

It seems to me the key question to ask in this situation is, what is there the capability to fix in the short term at low capital cost? Additional runways seem out of the question at all three major NYC-area airports, and even if possible they'd be hugely expensive to build. According to our endless threads on this topic none of the alternative airports in the region offer a meaningful alternative. That means somehow improving capacity at the three major airports is needed.

This article is only one of many pieces I've read over the years that indicate that the airspace around NYC could be redesigned for some substantial improvement. It would be an entirely just and fair use of Federal power to simply do NYC-area airspace redesign regardless of what local NIMBY's think, if the law allows it. ATC is Federal responsibility, and the FAA has a responsibility to maximize efficient use of airspace for both safety and capacity.

Too many millions of peoples' livelihood is connected to air travel, and New York is the single largest O & D market in the world. Tristate Senators and Congresscritters like Rep. Andrews are only a small portion of the national legislature, and the FAA and the rest of the legislature need to tell them sorry, this is a national economic necessity.

Jim

[Edited 2007-07-11 00:18:41]
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:36 am

There is one thing I wonder. I travel to New York several times a year and usually I choose to fly DL or AM (and sometimes MX) non-stop to JFK. It is rare that I choose to fly CO to EWR and even rarer that I choose to fly one-stop to LGA. I have indeed noticed the congestion problems of JFK, but I wonder whether EWR really is a better option. In my experience, the lines to go through x-ray machines at EWR are always unbelievably long, and flights are also very likely to be delayed (both for landing and for take-off). My concrete question is whether EWR should really be the preferred choice for those of us flying to New York.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Probl

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:57 am

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
That means somehow improving capacity at the three major airports is needed.

I don't think so. There is plenty of capacity, it's just not allocated right. They could double capacity at LGA tomorrow, and cut delays. How?... trim slots by 10% and open the perimeter rule. Like magic.

The problem isn't just the 3 NYC airports... it seems we should include the region 1,000 flights at TEB/MMU, 500 flights at HPN, and so on. That means people are screwing up NYC airspace at no cost to them.

What if there were a NYC airspace congestion authority. They would make sure no traffic jams occur. How?.... by specifying a max regional airspace load, making operators bid for those ATC slots, and squeezing out the spoilers who won't pay their share.

As with all slots, they should be rented out rather than sold. This means you could fine tune the total whenever needed. This would solve the traffic jams (no matter what) and generate some funds for NYC airports.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:01 am

I wish I knew what to do with the mess up in New York, but even someone with a transportation/planning background can't tell you that...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
Additional runways seem out of the question at all three major NYC-area airports,

If you read the article it states that additional runways (even if they were built) would do nothing as the AT controllers cannot handle anymore flights.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
My concrete question is whether EWR should really be the preferred choice for those of us flying to New York.

Well it's the closest, it's the first NYC airport, and unless something the writer of the USA today article knows that the Port Authority does not EWR and LGA handle more flights than JFK. JFK handles more travelers.

The article is about how bad delays are at JFK and they have four runways and less flights than EWR which has three runways.

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
As with all slots, they should be rented out rather than sold. This means you could fine tune the total whenever needed. This would solve the traffic jams (no matter what) and generate some funds for NYC airports.

No slots from an FAA perspective. Scheduling at will permitted as long as the LGA perimeter rule considered. COA put an RJ operation into LGA the first summer that slot control was abolished, and ATC simply responded with a ground delay program every day until the COA sked was pulled down. NY tracon (N90) is certainly part of the problem until the airspace gets redesigned. EWR is oversked every afternoon, unless there is no wind, no clouds, and no TEB issues that interfere with using runway 11/29 as the overflow., in which case EWR may get by with a groundstop. Otherwise, count on a GDP every day. COA only connects about 30% of their pax at EWR, so maybe 3 hour rolling groundstops or a gdp don't hurt them that much.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
I don't think so. There is plenty of capacity, it's just not allocated right. They could double capacity at LGA tomorrow, and cut delays. How?... trim slots by 10% and open the perimeter rule. Like magic.

Double the capacity at LGA???? With a single runway in and a single runway out?? And limited gate/ramp space??? So how do you land 60-80 per hour on a single runway (LGA's usual AAR-airport acceptance rate- is about 38-40 in VFR with no wind)???


Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The article is about how bad delays are at JFK and they have four runways and less flights than EWR which has three runways.

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

JFK virtually never uses 4 runways at once. It's usually two in and one out, or one in and two out during the big departure pushes. Watch how they lower the AAR in the late afternoon to accommodate the departure push. EWR can only use their 3rd runway (11-29) in the best of conditions as a landing overflow.

And yes, the answer will be airspace redesign.
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:37 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

I respectfully disagree. The airlines schedules at these airports are based upon VMC arrival and departure rates. In most cases, the delays are due to simple math. If airport A can handle 60 Visual arrivals/hr and suddenly bad weather occurs ... guess what ... it now can only handle 45/hr or less ... not because of airspace, but FAA separation standards, ILS approaches etc. The result - the huge delays we see.

In most cases the current airpace allows aircraft to arrive at the maximum arrival rates ... but required separation in bad weather slows that down ... not the airspace itself. Agrred, there are some issues with runway configurations that restrict and limit the airports depending on the configuration in effect, but with airports so closely spaced, that's always going to happen to some extent. RNAV/RNP approaches are another move forward (EWR etc.)

I have no easy answer, but IMO hourly shuttles (which never run every hour) are part of the problem. But all the time airlines can schedule flights at these rates ... they of course will. I'm not suggesting lower the arrival/departure slots, and therefore forcing the airlines to use larger aircraft with less frequency .... but it sure would help solve the problem.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:55 pm

If you read the article it states that additional runways (even if they were built) would do nothing as the AT controllers cannot handle anymore flights.

I did read the article, thank you, but I missed that item. But I did not advocate building more runways (though if the airspace could sustain them, I'd be all for them).

The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

As I argued in my post.

I respectfully disagree. The airlines schedules at these airports are based upon VMC arrival and departure rates. In most cases, the delays are due to simple math.

Then why is the FAA convinced that redesigning the airspace would help? Apparently the routes are not arranged at maximum efficiency, and the delays are more than just a matter of an individual airport's hourly-rate math in varying weather conditions.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:13 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 11):
Then why is the FAA convinced that redesigning the airspace would help?

It would help for sure, but it isn't the problem.

You simply will never get the same VMC arrival rate during bad weather. If schedules are based upon the maximum arrival rates, it's irrelevant whether that is 75/hr or 100/hr, when the IMC rate is lower. That difference must go somewhere ... or most usually nowhere.

If you've ever sat at TEB on a Sunday afternoon, you'll see them arrive as fast as they ever will ... until somebody designs a radar cruise control just like the Mercedes, that sticks each aircraft exactly 50ft behind the one ahead ... now there's an idea  Wink

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:16 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
Double the capacity at LGA???? With a single runway in and a single runway out?? And limited gate/ramp space??? So how do you land 60-80 per hour on a single runway (LGA's usual AAR-airport acceptance rate- is about 38-40 in VFR with no wind)???

Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
EWR is oversked every afternoon, unless there is no wind, no clouds, and no TEB issues that interfere with using runway 11/29 as the overflow., in which case EWR may get by with a groundstop. Otherwise, count on a GDP every day. COA only connects about 30% of their pax at EWR, so maybe 3 hour rolling groundstops or a gdp don't hurt them that much.

This is all very interesting and thank you for your input. It does sound like TEB screws up EWR which is quite ridiculous. It's like someone's driveway going out into the middle of I-95. The public is not well served that way.

Instead, just control the airspace. Create a market for this tight airspace. Auction slots to it. If billionaires want to clog up public airspace, let them pay for that privilege. If Delta wants to add more CRJs to JFK, let them pay the congestion price.

The point is, the congestion is causing great harm. The cost of slots is not important, just a tool to kill the congestion right at the source. Methods to do so after the fact (Like ORD's idiotic "no more" rule) are ham-fisted at best.

This is a problem that's already been solved in the books. NYC needs to read them and reallocate. The whole nation's air transport is getting screwed up by NYC's lack of problem solving skills.
 
apodino
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:34 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

I don't understand. Cut the slots and eliminate the perimeter rule? Adding 100 new transcons a day? The problem is that we have too many flights as it is into LGA, adding flights is only going to make it worse.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 12):
You simply will never get the same VMC arrival rate during bad weather. If schedules are based upon the maximum arrival rates, it's irrelevant whether that is 75/hr or 100/hr, when the IMC rate is lower. That difference must go somewhere ... or most usually nowhere.

 checkmark 

This is a problem in a lot of places. I have always maintained that if an airport can only handle 36 planes in IMC, then there should only be 36 flights scheduled. For example PHL can run an arrival rate of 52 when the weather is good, and they are in a west config. In the east config the rate drops slightly to 48, and IFR is usually 36 when you lose the shorter overflow runways. PHL can handle this on most days, however if there is weather, it will cause problems.



In the new york airports the winds are also a big factor. For example, LGA has a better AAR in IFR conditions on the 13-22 config than they do VFR on the 31-22 config. But the difference between VFR and IFR at LGA isn't that much. They can get about 40 down in VFR and 38 in IFR. As long as they can keep planes flowing to and from LGA in these conditions, a 38 rate usually doesn't result in very lengthy delays, maybe a spin or two during peak demand. The problem becomes when you have convective activity blocking some routes into and out of any of the airports (Which happened today). The whole point of the airspace redesign is when this type of weather does hit, it will allow them more options to move traffic, where as right now if one small cell impacts a departure route, nothing moves, even though they can deviate easily.


The way I would do it in the new york airports is as follows. Limit LGA to 38 arrivals per hour, which if my math is correct would make about 76 movements an hour. Even if the weather goes down a bit, delays should be minimal. At EWR assume runway 11-29 is never used and treat it as a two runway airport (I.E. SEA) Since these runways are parallel, limit movements to 80 an hour, 40 departures and 40 arrivals. Over at JFK, Lower the arrival rates during the peak Int'l departure demand and vice versa for arrivals. Then implement the airspace redesign as planned.



That being said, here is a summary of what I think are the issues in New York. Too many flights without the infastructure to handle it. Airlines scheduling too many flights (I know frequency is a big deal, but what is the point of frequency if nothing is on schedule anyways, when you can reduce the number and run a more reliable schedule) An inadequate ATC system, and airspace not being utilized to its fullest potential. And also NIMBY's who are trying to hold up all efforts to modernize the airspace, as well as politicians fighting this. (most shocking piece in the article says that no current politician from the NY area has signed off on the airspace project, a shocker when you consider that Sen. Schumer has been a big aviation advocate for New York and has worked tirelessly to improve service) And an undecuated public continually putting the blame on the airlines shoulders. Yes they deserve some of it, but not all of it. And last but not least. The continuing battle over funding the ATC between GA and the Airlines means that necessary projects like this get their funds delayed because no one knows where the money will be coming from. But that debate belongs in another thread.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:51 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 9):
JFK virtually never uses 4 runways at once.

I've never seen them use all four. I've seen three on numerous occasions, more often two, but never four.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It does sound like TEB screws up EWR which is quite ridiculous. It's like someone's driveway going out into the middle of I-95. The public is not well served that way.

Well, TEB is already there, and it does bring a lot of jobs and money to the community. And it was there before Newark was. Not to mention that if you close it, all those bizjets are going to be heading for EWR, LGA, JFK and HPN, which isn't going to help congestion there much.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:09 pm

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 1):
such as CRJs have proliferated these airports.

I think thats really one of the problems with aviation in America today. The overabudance of Regional jets, not to go away from the topic but airports like CVG, CLT, and LGA are just inundated with these aircraft. I know that frequency and time of travel is important to the US travel, hence we dont see larger planes doing longer routes, but seriously this to me seems like common sense, isnt having medium sized jets with lesser flights between cities better than serving it 12 times daily with a CRJ? It seems better for the environment as well, and better for a free-flowing airport/airspace. Its just abhorrent how much delays passengers have to deal with.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):

good research
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:57 pm

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 10):
RNAV/RNP approaches are another move forward (EWR etc.)

As I wait for the article to load, sloooooow connectivity it seems today.....RNAV/RNP approaches are a help certainly, but only if designed correctly where the approach paths and altitudes de conflict the NYC airports from each other. That is the first step IMO, next is to ensure all operators are equipped, trained, educated as well as the controller workforce to utilize RNAV/RNP approaches, quite a few operators currently do not have RNAV let alone RNP approaches in their ops specs, so they don't fly them.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:16 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 4):
Wow, a USA Today aviation article that at least looks like the author did some homework.

I would agree.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Not sure it is passengers as much as it is ability for the airplanes to avoid a gridlock situation and adequate gate space.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
The answer has been and will continue to be the airspace redesign.

You can redesign all you want but if you don't include new separation standards (and I don't mean a slight relaxing of separation standards as Sturgell speaks to in the article) then you haven't taken full advantage the tighter route containment that is available in aircraft today.

Think of it as tiny tubes of airspace both lateral and vertical and go from there thinking way outside of the box. If you can land airplanes in Alaska between rocks, have approach paths into numerous airports in other states using RNP values of .1, then why not expand that thinking to aircraft separation standards and do it NOW.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:22 pm

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
This is a problem in a lot of places. I have always maintained that if an airport can only handle 36 planes in IMC, then there should only be 36 flights scheduled. For example PHL can run an arrival rate of 52 when the weather is good, and they are in a west config. In the east config the rate drops slightly to 48, and IFR is usually 36 when you lose the shorter overflow runways. PHL can handle this on most days, however if there is weather, it will cause problems.

Well, that's the only solution if you really want no delays when the weather is bad. We cannot have it both ways .. schedule as many aircraft as possible ... then expect those schedules not to be affected severely when bad weather prevails. If as you say, we limit the schedules to the lower AAR (IMC conditions), then 'in theory' there will much less impact when those conditions do occur.

Of course, many will say, why limit the schedules to 45 arrivals/hr 365 days/yr, when 250 of those days are perfect conditions and you can fit 60 arrivals/hr. Well, like I said, you can't have it both ways.

I not for regulation in general, but this isn't something that can be self-policed. Airlines will always try and schedule to the limits ... it's those limits that perhaps need more regulation.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
I know frequency is a big deal, but what is the point of frequency if nothing is on schedule anyways, when you can reduce the number and run a more reliable schedule

Yes, my big argument on many of these threads on this topic ... I see you all yawning  Smile I usually quote this weeks actual departure times for these high-frequency shuttles, just to show the reality, but I'll spare you  Wink

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:44 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17):
quite a few operators currently do not have RNAV let alone RNP approaches in their ops specs, so they don't fly them.

Witness the special non-rnav routes issued every day to ORD from the east and also the special non-rnav routes from DTW to accommodate NW's old DC-9's.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Yes. Read it again. Cut slots by 10%. That sure would smooth out LGA operations. Removing the perimeter would result in 100 new transcon flights per day, doubling LGA's passenger throughput, or very nearly so. Can LGA handle that many passengers, yes, I believe it can.

Sorry. Still makes no sense to me. I've been at LGA many times since 1970 when the airport has been packed full of pax...I do not believe IMHO that the airport, given the current terminals, access roads, parking, etc. could handle twice the pax it now handles. To add all these transcon flights (which I suppose you think would come from sked reductions at JFK and EWR, or do you believe that the NYC catchment area still needs 100 additional transcons..are there 100 total now?) during peak hours when people want to travel, and given your "new" AAR of 32-36 in VFR, other flights would need to be cut. I suppose high ticket business folks coming from BOS or DCA could wait another hour. Of course, dispatchers would have to really sharpen their pencils to get the MTOG on all these transcons, especially if there was weather on the other end and you were carrying alternate and hold fuel, given the 7000 ft runways and obstructions at LGA (try getting stuck on departing rwy 22 a couple times a year...not pretty). Anyway, the problem is not moving the maximum amount of pax, it's supporting a schedule of flights from the destinations that people want to fly. DL, TW, AA, NA and others used to fly DC-10's and Tristars to LGA back in the 70's, so they could certainly move pax. However, if busy business, government, or educational folks want to get from, say, CHO to NYC and not take all day, then there is a reason for that CHO-LGA flight. An airline like US could certainly find more profit in those 40-70 seats at a $400-800 fare than on a lowball transcon flight at $199-299, of which has been (since the 1950's) often sold as loss-leaders by the airlines.
Look at WN cutting lots of their transcon or near transcon service in the fall...just not as profitable.
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:53 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 20):
Witness the special non-rnav routes issued every day to ORD from the east and also the special non-rnav routes from DTW to accommodate NW's old DC-9's.

I'm not even referring to those things which are a huge impact, I was referring to aircraft which are equipped but the operator doesn't train for the approaches so they don't fly them. Most if not all properly equipped aircraft are flying the SIDS/STARS but approaches no.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Probl

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:04 pm

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 16):
I think thats really one of the problems with aviation in America today. The overabudance of Regional jets, not to go away from the topic but airports like CVG, CLT, and LGA are just inundated with these aircraft. I know that frequency and time of travel is important to the US travel, hence we dont see larger planes doing longer routes, but seriously this to me seems like common sense, isnt having medium sized jets with lesser flights between cities better than serving it 12 times daily with a CRJ? It seems better for the environment as well, and better for a free-flowing airport/airspace. Its just abhorrent how much delays passengers have to deal with.

Not what people want. The business flying public wants frequency, since time is money, and are willing to pay for it. Don't forget that for most carriers, these folks comprise 25-40% of the pax, but contribute 70-80% of the profits. And add on top of it all the new carriers, new micro-jets, a robust fractional jet market, and the skies will continue to be more crowded, not less. I can't wait until the micros get flying, with 6-10 flights a day from say, PWK or DPA to TEB or HPN or TTN, each carrying a whopping 4-6 pax. More metal in the sky.

[Edited 2007-07-11 15:10:09]
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:09 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 21):
I'm not even referring to those things which are a huge impact, I was referring to aircraft which are equipped but the operator doesn't train for the approaches so they don't fly them. Most if not all properly equipped aircraft are flying the SIDS/STARS but approaches no.

Concur. I've had my share of flights where an rnav or gps approach was offered, but we didn't carry the plate for it, or the fixes were not in our FMS.
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 22):
Not what people want. The business flying public wants frequency, since time is money, and are willing to pay for it.

Not necessarily true. That's what the airlines think they (we) want.

If you ask the question "Do you want more frequency between DCA and BOS", then of course the answer is "Yes" ... and that's why we hear this often misleading statement, that the flying public wants frequency.

Now go to DCA or LGA on a Thursday evening and ask all those same business travellers a slightly different question ...

"Instead of hourly flights, where the 6pm, and 7pm flight both actually depart after the 8pm flight (which is also 30mins late), would you prefer just a 6pm flight and a 8:30pm flight, both of which would be far less likely to be delayed?"

I think you'd hear a much different story. Those business folks, where "time is money", can now decide whether to get the earlier flight, or stay in the office an hour or two longer instead of the gate for 2hrs, and get the 8:30pm flight.

If business folks can't manage a flight every two hours, instead of hourly, because of their valuable time, then they should probably be using (or buying) the corporate jet. Of course, irrelevant since on the East Coast routes, the hourly flights are hourly by schedule only.

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 23):
Concur. I've had my share of flights where an rnav or gps approach was offered, but we didn't carry the plate for it, or the fixes were not in our FMS.

But at least this is something that can be 'fixed' ... one of the more easier solutions  Wink If in fact these procedures do actually increase efficiency.

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:24 pm

I think the only way to solve NYC's traffic problems is using very drastic measures. The article says something about 1 million passenger operations per year. 1 million ... that's exactly the number that a single airport of ATL handles with exceptional efficiency, and even ORD can cope with 1 million operations, it will even be able to cope with 1.3 or 1.4 million if the OMP is (ever) completed. Throw in over 300.000 operation of MDW as well, plus Chicago's satellite airports.

I think there are only two options on what to do:

1) Reduce the NYC area (including Newark, New Jersey and whatever "suburbs", excuse the expression, of NYC there are) to TWO airports. One airport for all the air carrier traffic that can handle around 1.5 million flights a year, thus an 8 parallel layout, plus a smaller airport that handles all the biz/GA traffic, capable of around 400.000 flights a year, thus two parallels with 3400ft spacing. Make sure those two airports are decently spaced from one another, have parallel runways and are spaced LATERALLY. Limits slots on "greater NYC international airport" to 150 arrivals and 150 departures per hour, and on the BIZ airport to 50+50.

2) Take EWR, JFK, LGA, TEB and reconfigure the whole fields to an all parallel layout (04/22 or 13/31, I can't find enough wind data to determine which option is better). Make an ATL-like layout in JFK, 1+1 or 1+2 parallels in EWR, 2 parallels (closely spaced) in LGA and 2 parallels in TEB. Thus, JFK can take about 700Kops, EWR 500KOps, LGA 300Kops and TEB like 300kops.

I know both options are totally off the chart in the cost department and result in a shitload of hassle, but I don't see any other option, unless you pass a law that the smallest airliner at LGA, EWR and JFK is an A319/73G.

SailorOrion
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4958
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:36 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6):
The problem isn't just the 3 NYC airports... it seems we should include the region 1,000 flights at TEB/MMU, 500 flights at HPN, and so on. That means people are screwing up NYC airspace at no cost to them.

This is a total red herring. I have flown into TEB and HPN a number of times, and I do not need to talk to NY approach control except to get transferred to the respective towers. This means that I am not anywhere near the airways used by any of the major airports. Granted, I was flying a piston single, but business jets can do much the same thing. The actual approach and departure corridors of an airport are where the congestion occurs, and those take up very little airspace. The problem, as others have noted, is that in IFR conditions separation must be increased, and right now there just is no way around it. The real solution would be to require the airliners to schedule for IFR frequencies instead of VFR; the problem would then largely disappear. The penalty would be underutilization during VFR weather.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 24):
"Instead of hourly flights, where the 6pm, and 7pm flight both actually depart after the 8pm flight (which is also 30mins late), would you prefer just a 6pm flight and a 8:30pm flight, both of which would be far less likely to be delayed?"

I think you'd hear a much different story. Those business folks, where "time is money", can now decide whether to get the earlier flight, or stay in the office an hour or two longer instead of the gate for 2hrs, and get the 8:30pm flight.

If business folks can't manage a flight every two hours, instead of hourly, because of their valuable time, then they should probably be using (or buying) the corporate jet. Of course, irrelevant since on the East Coast routes, the hourly flights are hourly by schedule only.

I don't think the actual flights matter. We routinely jump on whatever is leaving when we get to the airport versus the actual flight we were booked on (works most of the time at our elite level....the best reason to maintain FF loyalty, imho). So if the 2PM departure is leaving at 5PM, and there is a seat, it really doesn't matter. I'll be doing that later this week to EWR. Knowing the likelihood of delays, I'll put myself on the standby list for an earlier flight when I checkin online the night before. There are times that we actually arrive early at our destination, because we had good luck driving to the field, getting through security, and just made it onto a delayed departure that was actually leaving earlier than our sked flight, but would have been long gone if it was on time. I remember the times when the original Eastern AirShuttle from DCA to LGA would pull out a separate plane just for you (and usually an Electra!) if they did not have a seat for you on the sked flight that hour, and don't forget, the AirShuttle was all non-reservation...just show up, and pay onboard.

Most carriers that use their own slot swapping software for gdp's will try to keep the citypair flights in sked order, but if they are manually doing swaps using the free software that comes with FSM, then it's up to the guy doing the swaps to try and keep the flights in order, rather than having the software do it for you.
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
. The real solution would be to require the airliners to schedule for IFR frequencies instead of VFR; the problem would then largely disappear.

"We" in Europe have little problems using this strategy. Also, with decent airport layouts, the capacity differences between CAT I and VFR aren't that huge

SailorOrion
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
This is a total red herring. I have flown into TEB and HPN a number of times, and I do not need to talk to NY approach control except to get transferred to the respective towers. This means that I am not anywhere near the airways used by any of the major airports. Granted, I was flying a piston single, but business jets can do much the same thing. The actual approach and departure corridors of an airport are where the congestion occurs, and those take up very little airspace. The problem, as others have noted, is that in IFR conditions separation must be increased, and right now there just is no way around it. The real solution would be to require the airliners to schedule for IFR frequencies instead of VFR; the problem would then largely disappear. The penalty would be underutilization during VFR weather.

Check on the www.fly.faa.gov/ois page for the TM tips (traffic management) tips on EWR, and you will see special requirements for TEB ops that affect the use of runway 11/29 at EWR, including the requirement for a tower sup to be present at TEB during certain configurations. HPN isn't that much of a factor for LGA/JFK arrivals, but I have waited off the gate departing HPN going west for more than an hour, waiting for N90 to take us in VFR weather (not filed VFR...part 121/135 air carriers do not file VFR by opspecs).
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 27):
I don't think the actual flights matter.

I agree, but the frequency sure does if you are of the opinion that the airport is over-scheduled. If the solution is to reduce the number of movements/slots, then airlines would have to reduce frequency .... and IMO this would have very little effect on the average traveller - business or otherwise. In fact, the opposite is true - the high frequency of flights is one of main causes of these huge delays - the end result being much poorer service to the passenger.

Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
blueskies8
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:32 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Well, TEB is already there, and it does bring a lot of jobs and money to the community. And it was there before Newark was. Not to mention that if you close it, all those bizjets are going to be heading for EWR, LGA, JFK and HPN, which isn't going to help congestion there much.

I couldn't agree more. And on top of that if you've ever flown into or out of or even watched the arrivals and departures at TEB you'll see that it is a well orchastrated system that requires some skill on the part of the pilots and controllers. TEB will stay but the slot system might be in the future for NYC.
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 30):
I agree, but the frequency sure does if you are of the opinion that the airport is over-scheduled. If the solution is to reduce the number of movements/slots, then airlines would have to reduce frequency .... and IMO this would have very little effect on the average traveller - business or otherwise. In fact, the opposite is true - the high frequency of flights is one of main causes of these huge delays - the end result being much poorer service to the passenger.

I totally agree with you! Federal slot controls should have never gone away, imho, as that would be the only way to control how the carriers sked their flights. There are at least a dozen hub or pacing airports that are sked at, or over their best VFR/best config AAR every day. Any little blip in the weather, or ATC, and the house of cards falls apart. Taxi out later than sked at a ZTL airport going to ORD or the NY/DC metros, and see how long you have to wait because you missed the spot in the overhead stream that ZJX/ZTL had built for you with their mile-in-trail. But the likelihood is for more metal in the next few years, not less. So even with slot control at the major airports, and without massive airspace redesign, the problem may still exist due to congested Tracon airspace, and an antiquated enroute environment (RVSM didn't help that much).
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
TeleBlue
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:34 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:30 pm

Quote:
SEPilot:
"I have flown into TEB and HPN a number of times, and I do not need to talk to NY approach control except to get transferred to the respective towers."

Of course - but that's while VFR. Try flying from PHL (or Wing's Field) to HPN on IFR and you'll be handled by a combination of NY approach controllers...
 
FLYGUY767
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:37 pm

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 2):
I also think that the number of regional jets in the region(not that many out of Kennedy) is a major problem.

 checkmark 

100% Agreed..

It is time for the ATC/FAA/DOT to sit down with the airlines and see why they need so many over-redundant flights with such small aircraft. Consolidate flights at less frequent times during the day using larger equipment. I have been hated by scores on this forum for having suggested this be done on the West Coast at LAX, as well as here in NYC at JFK, EWR, and LGA..

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 2):
Comair, US Airways(Partners), Eagle and Continental partners simply flood LaGuardia and Newark with regional jets.

 checkmark 

100% Agreed..

The over-redundant schedules on CRJ and ERJ into markets that can be consolidated is the airlines abusing the slots they have. I feel that the we would see a lot more longer range destinations from La Guardia if the over-redundant CRJ/ERJ frequencies were given up for less frequency and larger equipment. It has to happen soon. The problem lies in two fold, half with the ATC, and half with the airlines and their obsession with frequency over common sense.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
But mandating big aircraft at those times will just result in mainline aircraft with 40 pax on them !!! That is an improper regulatory style.

Airlines need to run less frequency with larger aircraft.. When it comes to the New York City market business cannot continue as usual. It is mind boggling that the airlines are relying more and more on the CRJ/ERJ and less and less on mainline for expansion. I have heard, and I cannot confirm that Delta Air Lines is planning to make LGA all mainline and transfer any CRJ/ERJ LGA traffic to JFK. That idea I like for the LGA side, I fear it is going to JFK however.

-JD
Summer Trip 2007: DEN HAAG>DUBAI>LONDON>VERONA>COSTA SMERALDA>CAPRI
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4958
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 29):
Check on the www.fly.faa.gov/ois page for the TM tips (traffic management) tips on EWR, and you will see special requirements for TEB ops that affect the use of runway 11/29 at EWR, including the requirement for a tower sup to be present at TEB during certain configurations. HPN isn't that much of a factor for LGA/JFK arrivals, but I have waited off the gate departing HPN going west for more than an hour, waiting for N90 to take us in VFR weather (not filed VFR...part 121/135 air carriers do not file VFR by opspecs).

You have a point; I have only flown VFR in the area, and IFR operations are different. But I do believe that the impact of TEB and HPN on the overall problem is small.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 am

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 34):
I have heard, and I cannot confirm that Delta Air Lines is planning to make LGA all mainline and transfer any CRJ/ERJ LGA traffic to JFK. That idea I like for the LGA side, I fear it is going to JFK however.

I think they would do that, IF only the perimeter were lifted. Then the would need their slots for LAX, SEA, etc. And the RJs would get booted to JFK, since they are not worth the LGA slot anymore.

LGA could become sort of a mini LHR, in terms of its rising slot value and the pressure to use large aircraft.... in the case of a perimeter lift.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):

You have a point; I have only flown VFR in the area, and IFR operations are different. But I do believe that the impact of TEB and HPN on the overall problem is small.

That's fine, I am just relying on geographic distance here. If it's 12 miles away from EWR, I would imagine -- but I do now know -- that it clogs EWR's airspace. In such a contest, EWR commercial jets should win over private/luxury jets, which carry fewer people.

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 20):
during peak hours when people want to travel, and given your "new" AAR of 32-36 in VFR, other flights would need to be cut.

Bingo. Now you are getting there. The most important thing is to cut slots at LGA and EWR, and possibly PHL too. Cut them until the operation runs clean nearly all the time. That is step 1.

Step 2 might be to open LGA's perimeter. What would happen? Probably something like this:

DL: LGA-LAX 5x daily
LGA-SAN 2x daily
LGA-PDX 1x daily
LGA-SEA 2x daily
LGA-LAS 6x daily
LGA-SNA 3x daily
LGA-ONT 2x daily
LGA SMF 2x daily

AA: same as above, plus:
LAX-LGA: 767 or premium 757 service.
LGA-SJU 4x daily
LGA-STT 2x daily
LGA-POS
LGA-SDQ
and so on.

UA: 757 PS service moves to LGA

US: same as Delta, more or less. US has a ton of slots at LGA which could make US a major NYC transcon player overnight, if they wish to.

All this mainline entry would come from RJ slots at LGA, probably just diverting them to JFK. JFK needs some transcons for connection, but most transcons really would love to be at LGA, where people are closer to their destination.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:58 am

Oh, and I should add: Moving transcons to LGA will hurt JetBlue. And I think Delta and US would be very excited about that.
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
In such a contest, EWR commercial jets should win over private/luxury jets, which carry fewer people.

Hmmmm .... well, this is a tricky subject. From an ATC standpoint, the airline alphabet groups keep telling us that a Gulfstream is no different from a Boeing 747, and therefore should pay their fare share into the system (Aha ... User Fees). I don't disagree that a blip is a blip, with some exceptions (i.e. 747s more separation, less flexible with maneuvers etc.), but we then cannot say that a 747 has a higher priority in the airspace just because it carries more people - this is irelevant from at ATC point of view, whose policies are that an IFR Gulfstream has no less 'priority' than an IFR BA 747.

Now, detering smaller jets by charging higher landing fees, or restricting slots, is a different matter - these conditions are then policed by the airport authorities, not ATC.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4958
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
In such a contest, EWR commercial jets should win over private/luxury jets, which carry fewer people.

I'm sure they do. In all my flying I have never had a controller hold up an airliner for me; I have many times been diverted or delayed for airliners. The only exception is when I have taken off at a busy airport; then it is unavoidable, but it is on the ground, not the air. Even then most busy airports use different runways for small planes wherever possible so the interference is minimal.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:11 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
I'm sure they do. In all my flying I have never had a controller hold up an airliner for me; I have many times been diverted or delayed for airliners.

Are you talking VFR again ?  Wink

Otherwise, no, all IFR traffic gets the same priority, unless for other operational reasons.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
FLYGUY767
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:13 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
DL: LGA-LAX 5x daily
LGA-SAN 2x daily
LGA-PDX 1x daily
LGA-SEA 2x daily
LGA-LAS 6x daily
LGA-SNA 3x daily
LGA-ONT 2x daily
LGA SMF 2x daily

Slight adjustment

LGA-LAX 4x, JFK-LAX 2x
LGA-SFO 3x, JFK-SFO 2x
LGA-LAS 2x, JFK-LAS 2x

LGA-SNA 1x, JFK-SNA 2x
(SNA Non Existing to NYC)

LGA-ONT(ONT Non Existing to NYC), LGA-SMF(SMF Non Existing to NYC), LGA-PDX, LGA-SEA, LGA-SAN
Solely to/from JFK for International Feed

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
UA: 757 PS service moves to LGA

That would be United Airlines dream come true!

-JD
Summer Trip 2007: DEN HAAG>DUBAI>LONDON>VERONA>COSTA SMERALDA>CAPRI
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4958
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 40):
Are you talking VFR again ?

Yes I am.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 40):
Otherwise, no, all IFR traffic gets the same priority, unless for other operational reasons.

I would still think that they would divert the GA plane before diverting an airliner, but I could be wrong. Even though the rules say all are equal the controller still has a lot of choice.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:16 am

What is the likelihood of the perimeter rule ever actually being removed at LGA? For instance, there's no chance of DCA's perimeter rule being lifted unless Congress were to impose it. MWAA has made clear consistently and repeatedly that they view the DCA perimeter rule an essential aspect of their operating philosophy for DCA/IAD. Would PANYNJ freely adopt such a major change for LGA and JFK?

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
FLYGUY767
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting DCA-ROCguy" class=quote target=_blank>DCA-ROCguy (Reply 43):
What is the likelihood of the perimeter rule ever actually being removed at LGA? For instance, there's no chance of DCA's perimeter rule being lifted unless Congress were to impose it. MWAA has made clear consistently and repeatedly that they view the DCA perimeter rule an essential aspect of their operating philosophy for DCA/IAD. Would PANYNJ freely adopt such a major change for LGA and JFK?

Alot of things are going to be changing over the new few years when it comes to the FAA/DOT. Business continuing as usual will cause this gridlock to become a daily problem. I can see in the not to distant future having the Prop equipment sent elsewhere, and perimeter rules become a thing of the past. LGA should have had the perimeter rule tossed years ago.

Why would it be okay for service as far as Denver, but not the extra 45 minutes to SLC or PHX? The rule is old, outdated, and serves little purpose. What is the difference of allowing flights on Saturday and not Monday? The rule is protectionism at best, and is senseless in the least. The rule was built with special interests in mind. Those special interests have no place in todays sad state of US air traffic and travel.

I worry however that if the perimeter rule is lifted Newark will be hit very hard. JFK would reduce, but would not eliminate the Trans-Con as it is a requirement for the TATL operations. Newark having a much lower number of TATL and International flights would not require the current number of Trans-Con operations outside of Continental to support the Continental hub at Newark.

-JD
Summer Trip 2007: DEN HAAG>DUBAI>LONDON>VERONA>COSTA SMERALDA>CAPRI
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 5):
My concrete question is whether EWR should really be the preferred choice for those of us flying to New York.

Well it's the closest, it's the first NYC airport, and unless something the writer of the USA today article knows that the Port Authority does not EWR and LGA handle more flights than JFK. JFK handles more travelers.

Thanks STT757. I do not mean to take this discussion off-topic, but how bad is EWR's congestion problem. My recent experiences with EWR notwithstanding, I hear lots of horror stories about long delays.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
FLYGUY767
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 45):
Thanks STT757. I do not mean to take this discussion off-topic, but how bad is EWR's congestion problem. My recent experiences with EWR notwithstanding, I hear lots of horror stories about long delays.

I have heard Continental Airlines and Continental Express are near to being maxed out at Newark...

-JD
Summer Trip 2007: DEN HAAG>DUBAI>LONDON>VERONA>COSTA SMERALDA>CAPRI
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
If it's 12 miles away from EWR, I would imagine -- but I do now know -- that it clogs EWR's airspace.

LGA is the same distance from JFK as TEB is from EWR.

Here's what the OIS has to say about EWR:

Departures:
When the overflow runway 11/29 is available, EWR tower normally launches off of RWY 29. If TEB operations are being conducted on a northeast flow, and there is no supervisor present in the tower at TEB, the ILS 6 approach must be utilized in lieu of the charted visual approach. This operation is in direct conflict with EWR RWY 29 departures and, during heavy prop rushes, EWR will incur delays.
During departure operations on the primary runways, EWR tower must provide additional spacing between consecutive departures because of noise abatement procedures.

During periods of inclement weather or strong gusty winds, EWR operations can be severely impacted, if TEB's runway configuration is not compatible with EWR's runway configuration.

When EWR is departing RWY 22R and LGA conducting either RWY 4 or RWY 31 approaches, the complexity increases dramatically for the EWR Departure Controller.



Arrivals:
EWR tower can utilize the overflow RWY 11/29 for arrivals, but the most favorable operation is conducted to RWY 11. TEB northeast operations generally have the same adverse impact on RWY 11 arrivals as it does on RWY 29 departures.
When EWR is arriving on the 4's, ZDC's RBV flow is on an extended RWY 4 final, and compaction is a problem. If ZDC does not provide the MIT that N90 requires, ZDC will usually end up holding.

EWR RWY 11 operations significantly increase the workload of the N90 satellite position.


Some potential solutions I see are to make sure that TEB has a full-time supervisor (or at least from 6am-1am). This will of course require the FAA to staff the facilities properly, something which they have shown a lack of willingness to do, but it would help. Also, develop RNP procedures for TEB that will allow the planes to fly the same route as the CVFP, but without the requirement for VFR conditions (3500ft ceilings and 5 miles visibility are the requirements for the CVFPs). Same thing for departures. I'm not sure how RNP approaches differ from RNAV approaches, but if I'm not mistaken, most bizjets are RNP-ready.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 40):
Otherwise, no, all IFR traffic gets the same priority, unless for other operational reasons.

Those operational reasons can mean a delay for smaller planes. I've been given delay vectors so that a DC-9 would be able to land ahead of me (it would have easily passed me on final). I was in the airspace first, and was closer to the airport, but it still made sense to get me out of the way and let the bigger, faster airplane go first, and I had no problem with it.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 47):
Those operational reasons can mean a delay for smaller planes. I've been given delay vectors so that a DC-9 would be able to land ahead of me (it would have easily passed me on final). I was in the airspace first, and was closer to the airport, but it still made sense to get me out of the way and let the bigger, faster airplane go first, and I had no problem with it.

Right, I guess most of this is common sense on behalf of the controller and pilot. This was less about you having less priority, but more about logical and sensible sequencing.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USA Today Article On JFK And NYC Traffic Problems

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 43):
Would PANYNJ freely adopt such a major change for LGA and JFK?

The Port Authority does not support the lifting of the perimeter rule at LGA, I can't think of any airline save maybe US that would want the perimeter rule lifted at LGA. AA has invested heavily in an under utilized Terminal at JFK with a Flagship Admirals club room.

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 44):
Newark having a much lower number of TATL and International flights would not require the current number of Trans-Con operations outside of Continental to support the Continental hub at Newark.

EWR is the fifth busiest airport in the US for International flights, AA and UAL have drastically reduced their trans-con flying from EWR since '01. CO has increased, if any place could use a reduction in trans-con flights it's JFK where you have AA, DL, B6 and UAL flights right on top of each other flying to the same places. That's where you would want to make reductions, but no one is saying that Trans-con flights need to be reduced. The problem is that EWR, JFK and LGA all don't need 12+ daily Regional jet flights to Raleigh and such.

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 46):
I have heard Continental Airlines and Continental Express are near to being maxed out at Newark...

There's plenty of room for continued CO International expansion at EWR, it's the regional side that gets shut down during inclement weather which is why CO has purchased 72 seat Q-400s to replace 35 and 50 seat ERJ-135s and ERJ-145s. CO also flies mainline 737s to Buffalo, Raleigh, Detroit, Washington National, Boston etc. Where JFK is all Regional Jets.

CO has their EWR hub, which has been well established for over 20 years. The problems arising now is that B6 has grown so rapidly at JFK, and DL is trying to catch up to B6. JFK needs the slot controls brought back and modified to reduce the amount of Regional flights at JFK, especially in the afternoons and evenings,
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 802flyguy, Aab498, Bing [Bot], D L X, dallas6940, deltaguy767, Iemand91, LH748, LXA340, msycajun, quiet1, ScottB, SFOA380, SOBHI51, tjwgrr, trex8, TWA772LR, wink78 and 352 guests