FlyPNS1
Topic Author
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:21 pm

No surprise here, but the first threats are coming from the FAA that airlines must reduce schedules at certain East Coast airports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/

I imagine that next summer will likely be the straw to break the camel's back particlularly at JFK.
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:04 pm

FAA fix the old out of date inadequate ATC system, Can some one find out the number of commercial aircraft in service over the past 6 years or so. Has there been any increase?

FAA is just as bad as the TSA when it comes to the ATC system. Blaming everyone else for their incompetence.

Its' corporate aviation, it's the weather, it's the airlines, it's environmentalists, it's to expensive.
It's everything but the FAA's fault, idiots.
The voice of moderation
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:10 pm

Ridiculous incompetent FAA.

(Police to urban drivers) CALM DOWN OR WE INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH RED AND GREEN LIGHTS.

(Urban drivers) Noooooooooooooooo!! Evil evil govt!! Never!

(Police) OK, j/k, no traffic lights, RESUME YOUR TRAFFIC JAM
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:10 pm

How are ATC services priced in the US? Do Cessna's pay the same as a 744? Is there congestion pricing?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:19 pm

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 3):
Is there congestion pricing?

No, but there should be (through monthly, or biyearly slot rental fees).

It's as if it's a miracle that FRA or NRT or LHR can function at all. Imagine... gee... oh yeah, slots.  Smile

It is the government's job to police the public order. The airspace has become disorderly. In a multiplayer competition, the public resource cannot survive. It is imperative for the govt to step in. Otherwise, what you get is a destroyed resource. Individual players don't give a rip... instead, you must adjust the rules so the game functions harmoniously.

Same thing with environmental protection. If people could destroy the earth tomorrow for a few dollars, they will do it. Stopping them is an important function of govt. For example, PCBs were banned by govt. Catalytic converters were opposed by automakers until the govt required them. These were positive steps that ultimately helped industry and the populace. Congestion pricing is just another resource protection scheme that allows the govt to make perfect use of scarce resources. Yes, some resources are scarce. Including some airspace.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:32 pm

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 3):

Sweet Jayzuz...not this again. How many Cessna's or Pipers or Mooneys or Bonanzas land at JFK or EWR, or any of the congested airports in the northeast...?

Even the FAA is finally getting it right; there are too many airliners flying in and out of too few major airports. It has very little to do with airspace. The airlines are looking everywhere except at themselves.
What the...?
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 3):
Do Cessna's pay the same as a 744?

Cessna's don't pay. Their fees are included with the price of fuel. One of the many great things about flying in America, IMO.
I love ASO!
 
iaddca
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:36 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:39 pm

You know we're f-cked when the FAA is resorting to empty threats.
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
Sweet Jayzuz...not this again. How many Cessna's or Pipers or Mooneys or Bonanzas land at JFK or EWR, or any of the congested airports in the northeast...?

Even the FAA is finally getting it right; there are too many airliners flying in and out of too few major airports. It has very little to do with airspace. The airlines are looking everywhere except at themselves.

If I knew the answers to these questions I wouldn't have asked.

The article indicated that the problem is not just on the ground but in the skyways.

So tell me, how many Cessna's or Pipers or Mooneys or Bonanzas land at JFK or EWR, or any of the congested airports in the northeast...? You seem to think it's very few. I myself have no idea.

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 6):
Cessna's don't pay. Their fees are included with the price of fuel. One of the many great things about flying in America, IMO.

That seems like a nice ideal and I'm sure it works fine at most times in most of the country. Does it work though in congested airspace? It seems like a regressive system for an aircraft taking up more time in the same airspace and moving less passengers or cargo (if any at all) to get a free ride if it is holding thousands of people on the tarmac.
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:51 pm

Something has to be done with LGA and JFK and EWR. These airports are always having delays. PHL is also have this problem. Can't the airlines spread out their flights thru out the day and not all having them come into and out of the above airports at the same time. I believe ORD did this and that has help delays alot. Instead of 400 flight leaving between 6:00pm and 9:00pm, why not spread these departures out over the whole day?

Just a suggustion. Seem like their should be some way the airlines can work together in these cities to help cut the delays.

Chuck
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:51 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Thread starter):
No surprise here, but the first threats are coming from the FAA that airlines must reduce schedules at certain East Coast airports.

Yeah, such a shocker! The questions are, do they have the cajones to back up this statement? Will airlines voluntarily reduce flights, especially if airline X complies and airline Z doesn't?

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 1):
FAA is just as bad as the TSA when it comes to the ATC system. Blaming everyone else for their incompetence.

The entire northeast corridor is one giant FUBAR. I do think blame can be spread equally. I think we all knew this was coming. Like the old saying goes "We're from the government and we're here to help".  banghead 
 
FlyPNS1
Topic Author
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting Iaddca (Reply 7):
You know we're f-cked when the FAA is resorting to empty threats.

I don't think the threats are empty. It's fully within the power of the FAA to restrict flights. Ideally, the airlines go along with it voluntarily (as we saw at ORD), but if not, the FAA can force the issue.

Obviously, the FAA is at fault for part of this mess. They have allowed the ATC system to stagnate for way too long. However, even if we had the best most modern ATC in the world, some airports would still suffer from delays due to overscheduling. In those cases, something else has to be done.
 
kstatepilot
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:57 pm

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 8):
That seems like a nice ideal and I'm sure it works fine at most times in most of the country. Does it work though in congested airspace? It seems like a regressive system for an aircraft taking up more time in the same airspace and moving less passengers or cargo (if any at all) to get a free ride if it is holding thousands of people on the tarmac.

Like someone said, they pay for it in the price of fuel. It isn't a "free ride". They don't use the same ATC as most airliner traffic. They use low center and less congested airports. I really don't see how a C-182 or Piper Cherokee is making airlines life difficult.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 1):
Its' corporate aviation, it's the weather, it's the airlines, it's environmentalists, it's to expensive.
It's everything but the FAA's fault, idiots.

I won't totally disagree with your "voice of moderation"  Smile but will ask, please tell me how weather, flight scheduling by airlines, environmental and NIMBY issues are the fault of the idiots?

If aircraft won't fly through a line of thunderstorms (thank goodness) and because of it an entire sector/route/cornerpost is rendered unusable, or the RVR at an airport is 600' for all the runways and 1/3 of the operators are not certified to fly down to CAT IIIB mins, causing delays or diversions, is that the fault of the ATC system? If so, I better turn in my certificate today and retire.

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 1):
FAA is just as bad as the TSA when it comes to the ATC system.

I hope not that bad but get the point!

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 1):
FAA fix the old out of date inadequate ATC system

Oh for sure but good luck.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
Even the FAA is finally getting it right; there are too many airliners flying in and out of too few major airports. It has very little to do with airspace

Getting it right isn't how I'd say it! It has quite a bit to do with airspace and adequate runways to support higher airport acceptance rates, then on the ground enough concrete to move aircraft around an airport and ramps without gridlock setting in..
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
apodino
Posts: 3030
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:03 pm

This article mentions Anti trust imunity, something which is not discussed a lot as it relates to domestic flights. I think its a good idea myself, but only in the airports that have capacity issues at the moment. (BOS, JFK, PHL, LGA, EWR, ORD, and maybe SFO) What has been mentioned is the fact that airlines can't discuss their schedules with each other, so basically everyone competes for the same piece of concrete at the same time, as well as overschedules in some hours. And as I have said before, one thing you can do to help in the short term is schedule only to the IFR arrival rate, and not the VFR arrival rate, which in PHL is 16 more in VFR than IFR (Assuming a west configuration).

And one other thing of note. DCA is also a slot restricted airport like LGA. DCA almost never has delays of any significance save in really bad weather (TStorms or heavy fog). If Slot restrictions are working at DCA, why are they not working at LGA?
 
Indy
Posts: 3957
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:05 pm

I think very restricted slots at a few choice airports would be a good thing. Maybe airlines would use better judgment when planning routes. They may choose to run fewer routes between select cities and run larger jets instead. I don't know that you really need 8+ departures to a single city on a single airline. Nobody is going to cut frequencies on their own. If airline A cuts a few flights then airline B just adds a couple more. The only way to correct this problem is through regulations. The airlines brought this on themselves. I have a problem with the idea of "Oops we've overloaded our schedules. Time to hit up the taxpayers for more money."
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
skyhigh
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:37 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:05 pm

I am certainly no expert on this bit from what I have read on other posts, there seems to be a lot of regional flights clogging up the major international gateways.

Going off on a tangent somewhat...

I know that it has been heavily discussed in another post but one way to reduce congestion in the NE corridor would be for the Government to boost the funding towards the rail infrastructure.

Living in Australia I was shocked to see how short the distances are between the major cities in this region. High Speed trains would heavily reduce the number of regional flights.

What are the chances of this happening? Zero probably. If only we lived on an ideal world!

Anyway, sorry to go off topic slightly......
 
Fleet Service
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 11:58 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 11):
Ideally, the airlines go along with it voluntarily (as we saw at ORD), but if not, the FAA can force the issue.

The problem with the voluntary reductions at ORD being that while AA and UA decreased the number of flights,other carriers saw the opportunity to add flights and did so, leaving ORD with basically no improvement in the congestion issue.
Yes, I actually *do* work for an airline,how about you?
 
LawnDart
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
there are too many airliners flying in and out of too few major airports.

But, they're all pretty full of passengers. So...it's those damned passengers' fault for wanting to fly into major metropolitan airports!

I personally think we should bulldoze the houses around JFK and build 4 or 5 new runways...that would reduce congestion in two ways...it increases runway capacity, and it reduces passenger demand because less people live in the surrounding area.  smile 

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
How many Cessna's or Pipers or Mooneys or Bonanzas land at JFK or EWR, or any of the congested airports in the northeast...?

Very few...they all go to corporate airports near the JFKs and EWRs of the world...like Teterboro...and in the process they use the same amount of airspace and ATC services carrying 1 CEO as a 747 carrying 420 passengers does.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Imagine... gee... oh yeah, slots.

Well, places like LGA and JFK have slots, but then the same government officials who are now threatening (new) restrictions previously allowed regional carriers in to LGA as long as it was to "underserved" destinations, and low-cost carriers in to JFK as long as they provided service to upstate NY.

That made the congestion at those airports worse. But at least now I can fly non-stop from BUF to JFK...
 
SeeTheWorld
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:46 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:27 pm

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
And one other thing of note. DCA is also a slot restricted airport like LGA. DCA almost never has delays of any significance save in really bad weather (TStorms or heavy fog). If Slot restrictions are working at DCA, why are they not working at LGA?

DCA is underutilized versus LGA, and therefore delays are much less frequent.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 19):
Very few...they all go to corporate airports near the JFKs and EWRs of the world...like Teterboro...and in the process they use the same amount of airspace and ATC services carrying 1 CEO as a 747 carrying 420 passengers does.

Somewhat true...corporate jets don't require the same spacing as a 747. Airspace isn't the problem. Too many airliners are lining up to use the limited amount of tarmac.

The problem is where the rubber meets the road.
What the...?
 
LawnDart
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
Somewhat true...corporate jets don't require the same spacing as a 747.

Actually, very true....hadn't thought of spacing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
Airspace isn't the problem.

Well, it is a very big part of the problem...as is ATC equipment and staffing. Listen, I don't care if the aircraft is holding 4 corporate execs, or 550 passengers on an A380, the time I need to devote is the same. The airspace is (esentially) the same enroute or on approach/departure.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
Too many airliners are lining up to use the limited amount of tarmac.

That's why I suggest we bulldoze Brooklyn...

Understand that many of the congested airports are at large metropolitan areas, they are constrained as far as expansion possibilities...and they are in high demand. Even WN is forgoing the ABEs and COSs of the world and heading to PHL and DEN.

Yes, they will be congested, but there are many things that can be done to reduce that congestion...a minute here, a minute there.

1.) force all corporate executives to fly public transportation, and restrict all Pipers and Cessna to airports a minimum of 150nm away from the top 10 airports for commercial traffic.
2.) boot all regional jets out of LGA, EWR, BOS, JFK, PHL, ORD, and ATL
3.) make Jetblue shut down, and restrict DL and AA from adding additional service to JFK.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:59 pm

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 12):
They don't use the same ATC as most airliner traffic. They use low center and less congested airports. I really don't see how a C-182 or Piper Cherokee is making airlines life difficult.

What airspace do you fly in? How do you think an aircraft climbing or descending to/from high altitude sectors gets to the high altitude sector?

In congested airspace a C182 or P32T is in fact using airspace at times which a jet could be in as well as that jet taking up airspace a C182 could be using.....smaller GA aircraft get punished quite often around busy airports by being held at low altitude for long periods of time to avoid the arrival/departure routes used to/from the major airports, or they are routed out of their intended route of flight to avoid those major airport routes.....faster aircraft are slowed and vectored quite often as well to be sequenced into an airport when following a slower aircraft.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:59 pm

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 8):
It seems like a regressive system for an aircraft taking up more time in the same airspace and moving less passengers or cargo (if any at all) to get a free ride if it is holding thousands of people on the tarmac.

There are a number of deterrents for small planes to avoid large airports. The landing fees and handling fees are far higher than at the smaller outlying airports. There's more congestion - the point of corporate aviation is to avoid having to wait. You will see some corporate planes (99% of them jets) at JFK, LGA and EWR, but the number of planes at those three airports per day combined is probably about half of what Teterboro or White Plains handles in an hour.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:03 am

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 22):
1.) force all corporate executives to fly public transportation, and restrict all Pipers and Cessna to airports a minimum of 150nm away from the top 10 airports for commercial traffic.
2.) boot all regional jets out of LGA, EWR, BOS, JFK, PHL, ORD, and ATL
3.) make Jetblue shut down, and restrict DL and AA from adding additional service to JFK.

All three of those are, of course, ridiculous solutions that either wouldn't solve the problems or would create more problems than they would solve.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting Skyhigh (Reply 16):
Living in Australia I was shocked to see how short the distances are between the major cities in this region. High Speed trains would heavily reduce the number of regional flights.

Yes, it would be nice. The US can barely support Amtrak (actually they can't without subsidy). There has long been talk of high speed rail here, ala European systems. I do not see the US ever doing it on any widespread scale outside the current Boston-Washington corridor.
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 26):
The US can barely support Amtrak (actually they can't without subsidy). There has long been talk of high speed rail here, ala European systems. I do not see the US ever doing it on any widespread scale outside the current Boston-Washington corridor.

From what I've heard, Amtrak does turn a profit on the Northeast Corridor. It's just that the rest of the country loses so much money that the company is in a financial black hole.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:10 am

Wonder if we'll see the return of 747 transcons with twice a day frequencies  scratchchin 
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 28):
Wonder if we'll see the return of 747 transcons with twice a day frequencies

I wsa just going to ask the same thing. Bigger planes with fewer frequencies...
One Nation Under God
 
MSYtristar
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:52 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 29):
I wsa just going to ask the same thing. Bigger planes with fewer frequencies...

An airline could do 4x B744 or something similar and still offer decent departure times for business travellers...

JFK-LAX

8:00a
12:00p
5:00p
7:45p

LAX-JFK

7:30a
12:30p
4:30p
9:45p

You'd basically be able to replace 7x daily 767 service with around the same capacity and still have departures at key times.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:28 am

Better still get A380's.

 Smile
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:32 am

What do you know about the FAA Air Route Traffic Control System? It is one of the most up todate system in the world. There is a brand spanking new flow control computer system in Washington DC. The FAA is doing their job. Now the airlines need to do theirs. There isn't an unlimited availability of capacity in the East Coast. Have you ever seen a Flight Tracker map of all airplanes on the East Coast. Fubar isn't the word. There are less airplanes in the sky but they are flying more flights than ever before. Airlines need to rationalize their schedules and quit trying to force their hub model down everyone's throats. The FAA made good on their promise at FLL and LGA lest anyone on here forget. Flights have been reduced at those airports and delays along with them. More needs to be done across the entire system.

The American air traffic controllers are the best in the world and they are doing a heck of a job. I swear they all deserve a pay raise especially when the weather gets bad.

When the airlines claim the FAA needs to update, what they really want is "free flight". They think this will save them tons of money in fuel. They want to flight from airport ABC to XYZ on a direct great circle route bypassing airways. The big problem with this whole idea is that you have to resequence the traffic for arrival.

Again, I stand by the ATC system in the USA. I have flown in Europe, Asia, and North America. The American ATC system moves more airplanes with more bad weather than anyone else. Kudos to them. Screw anyone else that knows zero about the system for belittling them.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 32):
Again, I stand by the ATC system in the USA. I have flown in Europe, Asia, and North America. The American ATC system moves more airplanes with more bad weather than anyone else. Kudos to them. Screw anyone else that knows zero about the system for belittling them.

I agree with you. Our FAA moves jets very well. And very safely.

One thing the FAA does not do, is effectively eliminate traffic jams. That is its job too. It is time to limit traffic in congested areas. Just like the NYC police and traffic departments control NYC road traffic. Same thing. Without regulation, our roads would be a real mess. Maybe you may say the DOT should handle this. Maybe so. But I believe the FAA is on the hook for it too.
 
flyinryan99
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:54 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 33):
One thing the FAA does not do, is effectively eliminate traffic jams. That is its job too. It is time to limit traffic in congested areas. Just like the NYC police and traffic departments control NYC road traffic. Same thing. Without regulation, our roads would be a real mess. Maybe you may say the DOT should handle this. Maybe so. But I believe the FAA is on the hook for it too.

I agree with you, however I would say they need to add pavement too which they haven't effectively done either. Of course, that has more political implications.
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
won't totally disagree with your "voice of moderation" but will ask, please tell me how weather, flight scheduling by airlines, environmental and NIMBY issues are the fault of the idiots?

If aircraft won't fly through a line of thunderstorms (thank goodness) and because of it an entire sector/route/cornerpost is rendered unusable, or the RVR at an airport is 600' for all the runways and 1/3 of the operators are not certified to fly down to CAT IIIB mins, causing delays or diversions, is that the fault of the ATC system? If so, I better turn in my certificate today and retire.

Sorry, I think you missed my point or maybe not. The FAA blames all the problems on everyone else but themselves. They have no ability to adapt to the situation. They don't seem to have any authority or really answer to anyone, which is probably why nothing ever gets done. The FAA have been talking about upgrading the ATC system since the 80's, 20+ years later we still have the same problems. As long as the government is involved I can guarantee a couple of things; if it ever gets done, it's going to be expensive, it's going to be inefficient, it's going to be outdated by time it finally goes into service.

Are the airlines at fault, yes somewhat, you simply can't schedule 50 departures an hour for 1 runway? You have separation problems etc. So slot control the runway, The airlines won't like it but you need to do what you need to do.
Now the inbound and outbound flow could be improved dramatically, but it's not, we still fly VOR to VOR, NDB to NDB, FIX to FIX and if there is a line of thunderstorms in the way the system can't handle the function of diverting aircraft around the storm. If the airport is below mins then that is another story.

What the government does best (other then spending money) is regulation, the FAA is fantastic in the safety department, because of them we have the safest aviation industry on the planet. That is what they should stick with.

Airlines shouldn't have to schedule 2 hours block to block for a 55 minute flight, it's because the system is saturated.

Nimbys are everywhere. They want a nice nearby airport with cheap flights but don't want any of the noise and pollution that comes with it, it's a tough one, but maybe more airports should look into what SRQ has done for noise reduction.
The voice of moderation
 
LawnDart
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 32):
The FAA made good on their promise at FLL and LGA lest anyone on here forget.

Checking the Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report for July, 2007 versus July, 2006 (September issues):

FLL Departures '06: 80.3% '07: 74.6% -5.7 points
FLL Arrivals '06: 74.2% '07: 65.6% -8.6 points

LGA Departures '06: 69.3% '07: 70.0% +0.7 points
LGA Arrivals '06: 59.9% '07: 60.0% +0.1 points

What exactly did the FAA promise to do???
 
commavia
Posts: 9810
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:27 am

Ah yes, once again the glorious government bureaucracy clusterf*ck that is the FAA foisting the blame for their own idiocy onto the easiest target out there: the airlines.

Sad, sad, sad.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1540
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
And as I have said before, one thing you can do to help in the short term is schedule only to the IFR arrival rate, and not the VFR arrival rate, which in PHL is 16 more in VFR than IFR (Assuming a west configuration).

That's the best short term solution that I've heard anywhere, the problem is who has to cut their flights at a given airport? Every airport should be slotted this way and an airline should only be permitted to add flights in an available slot. By doing this to airports not currently having gridlock issues, it will prevent them from having those issues later.

Quoting Skyhigh (Reply 16):
Living in Australia I was shocked to see how short the distances are between the major cities in this region. High Speed trains would heavily reduce the number of regional flights.

Adding more rail would be a very expensive proposition. We dropped the ball on public transportation in the US a long time ago and correcting those errors now would present an expense that the country is currently unwilling to shoulder.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 19):
But, they're all pretty full of passengers. So...it's those damned passengers' fault for wanting to fly into major metropolitan airports!

Look at all the Saabs, Dash-8s and RJs at LGA and tell me that it's the best use of the slots. Fill up some E190s or A320s and you have a valid point.
 
LawnDart
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 37):
Look at all the Saabs, Dash-8s and RJs at LGA and tell me that it's the best use of the slots. Fill up some E190s or A320s and you have a valid point.

Never said it was the best use of slots...in fact, alluded to the fact that it was stupid, twice:

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 18):
Well, places like LGA and JFK have slots, but then the same government officials who are now threatening (new) restrictions previously allowed regional carriers in to LGA as long as it was to "underserved" destinations,



Quoting LawnDart (Reply 21):
2.) boot all regional jets out of LGA,

Having said that, those aircraft are there, and they are full, which reinforces my point:

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 18):
But, they're all pretty full of passengers. So...it's those damned passengers' fault for wanting to fly into major metropolitan airports!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:39 am

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 29):
You'd basically be able to replace 7x daily 767 service with around the same capacity and still have departures at key times.

I don't think the problem is the 7x767 departures. It's the MD-80s. ORD, for example is flooded with MD-80s and regional jets. In my opinion, there isn't much justification for flying a bunch of MD-80s to LAX, SFO, etc. Replace these with 737-900s or, where available, 757s. If you schedule 40 MD80/regional jet departures at 7:10am, they're going to be delayed.

I'm all for the type of solution that was considered for LGA - force airlines to increase the average no of seats per slot over time,
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
GolfBravoRomeo
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:12 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 35):
Now the inbound and outbound flow could be improved dramatically, but it's not, we still fly VOR to VOR, NDB to NDB, FIX to FIX and if there is a line of thunderstorms in the way the system can't handle the function of diverting aircraft around the storm.

What percentage of EWR/LGA/JFK departures are routed via LANNA and PARKE intersections? It's really fun in the entire region when thunderstorms are over them.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:43 am

If the airlines reduce flights/delays, the FAA wil NEVER fix the ATC. We'll just keep going from temporary non-fix to temporary non-fix for eternity.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1567
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 1):
FAA fix the old out of date inadequate ATC system,

Does need work, and is not the reason for the delays at EWR,JFK,ATL,ORD, etc etc etc. They are over scheduled.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 3):
Is there congestion pricing?

No. There should be though, and not for ATC services, but for the times you are using the field. Run up the cost of a ticket at 5pm by $100, and you'll see more people willing to take the 7pm.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
not this again. How many Cessna's or Pipers or Mooneys or Bonanzas land at JFK or EWR, or any of the congested airports in the northeast...?

They are not the problem anywhere.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
Even the FAA is finally getting it right; there are too many airliners flying in and out of too few major airports. It has very little to do with airspace. The airlines are looking everywhere except at themselves.

It's nice to see someone who's gotten the flick. There are airspace issues out there, but they have a small impact. that impact should be removed as well in time.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 8):
The article indicated that the problem is not just on the ground but in the skyways.

there is plenty of room in the air (skyways) if ATC isn't turning airplanes all over the place to space them out to an airport with over scheduled runways.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 11):
Obviously, the FAA is at fault for part of this mess. They have allowed the ATC system to stagnate for way too long. However, even if we had the best most modern ATC in the world, some airports would still suffer from delays due to overscheduling. In those cases, something else has to be done.

Good point. If AtC had the new technology tomorrow, so what. There still isn't enough runway for what the airlines have scheduled.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 12):
I really don't see how a C-182 or Piper Cherokee is making airlines life difficult.

You don't see it because it is NOT the case.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 19):
and in the process they use the same amount of airspace and ATC services carrying 1 CEO as a 747 carrying 420 passengers does.

Same volume of space, but that space is located in a different place than where the airliner is. The two users are not in conflict here %99+ of the time. In my experience, the GA guy gets the restriction any time there is an issue. So what is your point here?

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 22):
Listen, I don't care if the aircraft is holding 4 corporate execs, or 550 passengers on an A380, the time I need to devote is the same. The airspace is (esentially) the same enroute or on approach/departure.

I would like to see you expound on this a bit. What you have stated here is just not true. Explain it to me, change my mind with the facts and some discussion.

"...the time I need to devote is the same." You in ATC?
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 34):
we still fly VOR to VOR, NDB to NDB, FIX to FIX and if there is a line of thunderstorms in the way the system can't handle the function of diverting aircraft around the storm

I wasn't going to reply but couldn't resist myself!  Smile

NDB to NDB.....I am afraid not, in the Houston area there are only 3 or 4 left and none of them used for anything other than the ocassional NDB approach, surely not enroute navigation. What would you prefer to fly to if not waypoint to waypoint, the end of the departure runway to the end of the arrival runway?

Consider this please!

Weather deviations are done, and done quite often. Take a look at routes into/out of large terminal areas and how many of them have 1 or 2 parallel routes along either side, in some cases dual routes from the same cornerpost to 1 airport. Divert a steam of aircraft into the face of oncoming traffic, or stack a pile of arrivals on top of one another and try to pry them apart, have fun.

Still the best system in the world as mentioned by a few others on this thread, could things be better, yes, and should be farther along toward that end, whatever that end may be.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 9):
Just a suggustion. Seem like their should be some way the airlines can work together in these cities to help cut the delays.

It's called slot allcoating (or capacity managing) any airport that is operating at 80% of it's peak operational capability. The problem, the DOT (Read FAA) has determined this is discriminatory. In other words, the solution is illegal unless a multi-airport system is in play, like New York, but there's no solution to resolve the problem if all the airports in the system are at 80% peak hour capacity. Clearly, with people unwilling to support new airports, the rules need to change.

[Edited 2007-09-12 19:05:49]
 
FlyPNS1
Topic Author
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 36):
Ah yes, once again the glorious government bureaucracy clusterf*ck that is the FAA foisting the blame for their own idiocy onto the easiest target out there: the airlines.

I'll agree that the FAA has its share of problems and is partially to blame for this mess. However, the airlines deserve a lot of the blame. The airlines schedule flights as if airspace capacity is irrelevant. Not a smart way to run a business.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 18):
But, they're all pretty full of passengers. So...it's those damned passengers' fault for wanting to fly into major metropolitan airports!

But in many cases, that's not true. Many of those passengers are simply connecting through the metropolitan airport...it's not their final destination. However, the airlines have reduced the number of connecting hubs, forcing more and more traffic through these most congested airports. With US, you used to be able to connect through PIT, but now most PIT connections are dead and you get routed through congested PHL. DL killed the DFW hub and slashed the CVG hub forcing more connections through congested ATL and JFK.

From a financial standpoint, reducing hubs has improved the airline's performance. But from a passenger perspective, it has provided few benefits.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:58 am

Does anyone think the threat will work? It partially worked at ORD, although several of the smaller airlines exploited the situation. I think there needs to be a flattened landing fee to at least slightly discourage the proliferation of RJs. Airlines love the frequencies and non-union crews but they are really clogging the skies. The problem would disappear instantly if the minimum plane size was a 737 or A319.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 21):
1.) force all corporate executives to fly public transportation, and restrict all Pipers and Cessna to airports a minimum of 150nm away from the top 10 airports for commercial traffic.

You're only going to restrict me in my Cessna and Piper? Then I will go fly a Cirrus, Mooney, Diamond, Adam, or some other aircraft into the top areas. 150nm is a bit much don't you think? I don't think you realize for a small plane that would keep us over an hour flight time away from the city.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 21):
3.) make Jetblue shut down, and restrict DL and AA from adding additional service to JFK.

Nothing like going back to completely regulating the system. Communism works.

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 31):
The American air traffic controllers are the best in the world and they are doing a heck of a job. I swear they all deserve a pay raise especially when the weather gets bad.

Here Here. Tulsa Approach did one hell of a job keeping me safe when I tried to make it through some storms 3 weeks ago. I ended up not making it home, but ATC was extremely helpful the whole time.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
CBERFlyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:27 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 19):
DCA is underutilized versus LGA, and therefore delays are much less frequent.

IIRC, doesn't DCA have not just slot restrictions (number of daily flights total), but also legal restrictions on the number of hourly arrivals and departures? Due both to efforts to limit noise, and to having just the one longer runway?

This serves to spread flights out a bit more through the day, preventing situations encountered at other congested places with perhaps multiple dozens of flights crammed into peak hours.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else!

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
It is the government's job to police the public order. The airspace has become disorderly. In a multiplayer competition, the public resource cannot survive. It is imperative for the govt to step in. Otherwise, what you get is a destroyed resource. Individual players don't give a rip... instead, you must adjust the rules so the game functions harmoniously.

So people instead of arriving late, don't get there at all due to reduced capacity.

When traffic gets to heavy, municipal city governments either:

Builds new roads
Adds mass transit
Improves traffic flow (synchronized lights, incentivized car pool lanes, etc.)

They DO NOT restrict peoples cars to garages...EVER!!!!!

This is a case of BLAME SHIFTING by the FAA. The ATC system has been out of date for probably two decades now. Traffic growth has been predictable and this is a trainwreck that has been seen coming for years.

The FAA is feeling the heat about the delays, so what does the FAA do? Pressure congress for support to fix the ATC? No! They blame the airlines!!!