"Eliminate All Corporate Jet Operations at LaGuardia Airport and Convert the Corporate Jet Ramps for Use by Airline Aircraft as Delayed Aircraft Holding Pads.
Eliminating corporate jets would immediately add airline operating slots at LaGuardia Airport and serve the greatest number of people. Corporate jets have multiple other convenient airports that they can use instead of LaGuardia, but airlines can only use Islip Airport in Eastern Long Island and Stewart Airport in Duchess County, New York, both inconvenient for airline passengers traveling to Manhattan.
Delayed aircraft holding pads are airport ramps where airliners can park after pushing back from the gate and required to wait prior to take-off, or are delayed after landing. When airliners are parked at these holding pads, passengers can use cell phones, move around the cabin, use aircraft lavatories, and in an emergency, passengers can safely be removed from the aircraft. These pads are expensive and take a long time to build. By taking over corporate jet aircraft facilities, these holding pads can be available almost immediately and serve the interests of a far greater number of passengers than in corporate jets."
"Do Not Permit “Non-Standard” Departures at LaGuardia Airport.
“Non-Standard” departures involve the use of a runway by an aircraft when that runway is not then in use. Aircraft requests for “non-standard” departures at LaGuardia often arise because the aircraft, as loaded, cannot take-off and climb within required FAA and other operational requirements from the runway in use. “Non-standard” departures can result in substantial disruption and delays at LaGuardia. It is like sending a car down the opposite direction of the Long Island Expressway in rush hour, with all the disruptions and delays that would cause.
To reduce delays at LaGuardia, the FAA should not permit “non-standard” departures at LaGuardia at any time. If wind, weather, or heat conditions do not permit an aircraft to take-off on the runway then in use, then the aircraft must offload cargo, passengers, luggage, fuel, or other weight items to take-off on the runway in use, wait until the conditions are favorable for the runway being used, or cancel the flight. "
Impractical to implement, especially in light of the subsequent proposal to relax the perimeter rule, which may necessarily lead to an increase in non-standard departures.
"Eliminate All Published Airline Connections at LaGuardia Airport.
The highest, best, and most efficient use of LaGuardia Airport is based on its proximity to Manhattan. Because of this, only passengers originating from and destined to LaGuardia should be served at LaGuardia.
To reduce unnecessary passenger demand at LGA
, the U.S. Department of Transportation should prohibit airlines from publishing airline connecting flights through La Guardia. Published connections represent less than 5% of total passengers at LaGuardia, but this is extra passenger demand that is not needed at LaGuardia. These connecting passengers can be served through other hub airports. "
At this point, I pretty much tuned out from the proposals altogether. This is worse than ridiculous -- it has no meritorious basis in fact or theory.
"Consider Eliminating the 1500-mile Perimeter Limitation for Flights to and from LaGuardia. Allow Airlines to Move Beyond Perimeter Flights from JFK
Airport to LaGuardia, and Reallocate Slots at LaGuardia to Accomplish This.
The 1500-mile LaGuardia perimeter limitation is a rule of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. With the congestion and delay situation that is now being faced in the New York metropolitan area, the elimination of the LaGuardia perimeter rule, along with allowing airlines to move beyond perimeter flights from JFK
Airport to LaGuardia, and together with other changes, trades, compromises, and adjustments, could allow a reduction of congestion at JFK
Airport and reduce delays in the entire New York area."
The perimeter rule should go away regardless, but it won't necessarily reduce delays. In fact, it might well increase them due to the added spacing required for the larger aircraft airlines tend to use on longer stage lengths. Knocking one 737/A320 to ORD
does not yield a net benefit in delay reduction if that flight is then replaced by a 757/767.
"For all Airline Delays and Congestion, Change the DOT and FAA Definitions of “Delay”. These Definitions are Antiquated, Unrealistic, and Out of Touch with the Current Congestion Reality. Fix the Definitions and Passengers Will Get a More Realistic Understanding of the Congestion/Delay Situation.
The DOT definitions of when a flight is delayed, as arriving 15 minutes after the scheduled arrival time is not meaningful in today’s congested flying environment. This 15-minute standard does not relate to the scheduled flight time of a trip. A 15-minute delay on a one-hour flight (25% of the trip time), is more significant that a 15-minute delay on a 6-hour flight (about 4% of the trip time). Actually, in today’s flying environment, no passenger would seriously complain about a 15-minute delay.
The FAA’s definition of when an airport is in delay is based on the unencumbered taxi-out times from each gate to the end of the runway, like in the middle of the night. Actual taxi-out times at each airport at congested times of the day should be the benchmark for whether any airport is in delay. "
The existing definition of a delay works fine -- it's easy to understand, easy to measure, and relevant to the overriding concenr of most pax, i.e., arriving at their destination when the airline says they will.
Live life to the fullest.