Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
InnsbruckFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:35 pm

LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:43 am

In my neighborhood in Manhattan, there are many LinkNYC stations which display facts about the city. One of the facts is that flights from LaGuardia must be less than 1500 Miles unless they are on Saturday or to Denver. Why is this the case? It can’t be runway related, because the runways are long enough (~7000 feet). And why Saturday’s?
Last edited by atcsundevil on Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title edited for clarity
Last flown aircraft: DH8D OE-LGN < DH8D OE-LGI < E195 OE-LWE < DH8D OE-LGI < A320 D-AIUR < A320 D-AIZM < B738 PH-HZJ < B737 PH-XRD < B772 N766AN < B738 N855NN < B788 N45905 < A319 N808UA < A320 N482UA < B752 N19117
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6492
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:05 am

Easy to look up, but the 1500 mile perimeter is a rule of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who own and operate the NY area airports. It would hard to find a more power-hungry bureaucracy than thd Port Authority. The Tappen Zee bridge is located just outside its grasp (they also the bridges) at the widest part of the Hudson River. Even the State of NY didn’t want to deal with them.

The rule is about protecting JFK and EWR.

GF
 
Beechtobus
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:19 am

Yep, essentially the 1500 mile perimeter rule from LGA is. an artificial method of forcing airlines to use JFK (what was IDL) and to keep airlines from abandoning EWR. The idea being that all airlines would flock to the closer in, more convenient LGA if some kind of restriction wasn’t in place. Denver was the exception as it had nonstop service (and was the only city outside of 1500 served from LGA) when the rule was initiated. I’m not sure about the Saturday allowance besides the fact that this has historically been the least traveled day of the week, and the business oriented LGA flights aren’t happening on sat but facilities still need to be used and people still need to work.

Not all that uncommon of a method to force airlines to use a likely less convenient/ further out airport that likely saw a lot of capital investment. See Dallas/Ft. Worth’s Wright amendment (which essentially forced airlines into DFW from DAL), Washington DC’s perimeter rule (forcing airlines from the more convienient DCA to IAD), and the various iterations of the Bermuda agreement which forced many airlines to use LGW over LHR. I believe Paris (CDG, ORY), Tokyo (HND, NRT), Montreal (YUL, YMX) all have/have had similar regulations in place and probably many others.
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:14 am

To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.
 
jbmitt
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:33 am

YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Probably true. DSM is still a state capitol and big enough to maintain service. I’d expect frequencies to smaller markets to be reduced and upgauged to allow for massive expansion of previously unserved markets.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:39 am

jbmitt wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Probably true. DSM is still a state capitol and big enough to maintain service. I’d expect frequencies to smaller markets to be reduced and upgauged to allow for massive expansion of previously unserved markets.

I like your optimism, but there is no way the DSMs of the world stay when they could service LAX, SFO, PHX, etc which would no doubt be bigger earners
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:41 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Easy to look up, but the 1500 mile perimeter is a rule of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who own and operate the NY area airports.

GF


PANYNJ doesn't own any of the major NYC area airports. They lease and operate them. (JFK,LGA,SWF & EWR)
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:26 pm

YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6492
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:45 pm

Ok, technically they lease the airports, but the issue is they control them and have for decades.

GF
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2875
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:01 pm

YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Indeed. All of those places would be 'relegated' to EWR or JFK. The only way for both to ever exist were if a dozen or so beyond-perimiter slot pair exemptions were created à la DCA.
 
TWFlyGuy
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:46 pm

evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


Which is clearly why Boeing should restart the 757 production line! ;) I'm kidding I'm kidding!

If you can't make those two work, presumably SEA would be out as well...what does it really leave that would make eliminating the perimeter rule worthwhile? LAS? Maybe PHX which might be challenged Eastbound in the summer?
 
WN732
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:54 pm

evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


738's would do just fine on these routes, and especially the MAX.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:59 pm

WN732 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


738's would do just fine on these routes, and especially the MAX.


In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.
 
timz
Posts: 6580
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:38 pm

Beechtobus wrote:
the 1500 mile perimeter rule from LGA is. an artificial method of forcing airlines to use JFK (what was IDL) and to keep airlines from abandoning EWR.

Far as anyone knows, the rule dates from 1984. JFK and EWR didn't need protection then.
 
TWFlyGuy
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:46 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
WN732 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


738's would do just fine on these routes, and especially the MAX.


In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.


Presumably AA would move the 321-T's from JFK which are low density as well. I assume those would work which then does allow for most of the major routes carriers would likely want to add.
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:50 pm

TWFlyGuy wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
WN732 wrote:

738's would do just fine on these routes, and especially the MAX.


In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.


Presumably AA would move the 321-T's from JFK which are low density as well. I assume those would work which then does allow for most of the major routes carriers would likely want to add.


As I mentioned, the problem would be the A321s flying westbound from a 7,000 foot runway. It would take a payload hit. Probably a big one too. A321s are not that nimble on short runways, especially for long flights like LGA-LAX. Sure they can do LGA-ATL/CLT-MCO, but we're talking half or less than half of the distance.
 
shaneam12
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:00 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:58 pm

evank516 wrote:
TWFlyGuy wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.


Presumably AA would move the 321-T's from JFK which are low density as well. I assume those would work which then does allow for most of the major routes carriers would likely want to add.


As I mentioned, the problem would be the A321s flying westbound from a 7,000 foot runway. It would take a payload hit. Probably a big one too. A321s are not that nimble on short runways, especially for long flights like LGA-LAX. Sure they can do LGA-ATL/CLT-MCO, but we're talking half or less than half of the distance.


I would assume AA's 321-Ts would be able to make the trip since they already have much less seating than traditional A321s. In addition, any A321 neos that enter service with AA would be able to use LGA's runways (considering Alaska's neos fly to LAX and SFO from DCA, which has an even shorter runway than LGA).
 
MO11
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:01 pm

timz wrote:
Beechtobus wrote:
the 1500 mile perimeter rule from LGA is. an artificial method of forcing airlines to use JFK (what was IDL) and to keep airlines from abandoning EWR.

Far as anyone knows, the rule dates from 1984. JFK and EWR didn't need protection then.


It was 2000 miles before 1984, then reduced to 1500 miles. EWR was pretty much abandoned until PeoplExpress showed up. DCA had a "gentlemen's agreement" until around 1981, when AA broke the agreement and announced that it would start DCA-DFW flying. The FAA, which owned the airport then, ended up passing an FAR which codified the perimeter rule.
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1625
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:04 pm

I have operated an A321 out of YYJ (just shy of 7,000 feet) without too much issue with 200 full seats and 2 jumpseaters in the summer. I know east bound to YYZ it can be a shorter flight due to winds but I think with a less dense layout, always taking off into a head wind, flap 3 and TOGA you should be able to make it work without much issue. This is with the bigger trust engines, but I've always been impressed with the A321.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:29 pm

shaneam12 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
TWFlyGuy wrote:

Presumably AA would move the 321-T's from JFK which are low density as well. I assume those would work which then does allow for most of the major routes carriers would likely want to add.


As I mentioned, the problem would be the A321s flying westbound from a 7,000 foot runway. It would take a payload hit. Probably a big one too. A321s are not that nimble on short runways, especially for long flights like LGA-LAX. Sure they can do LGA-ATL/CLT-MCO, but we're talking half or less than half of the distance.


I would assume AA's 321-Ts would be able to make the trip since they already have much less seating than traditional A321s. In addition, any A321 neos that enter service with AA would be able to use LGA's runways (considering Alaska's neos fly to LAX and SFO from DCA, which has an even shorter runway than LGA).


DCA's runway 1/19 is actually slightly longer than LGA at 7,169 feet long.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7117
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:35 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.


Eh, not really. The 767 was specifically designed to be operated (on non-ER missions) from LGA's 7000' runways and pretty much every variant in the DL fleet, including the -400ER, has seen service from LGA to Florida and the within-perimeter pmDL hubs. I expect that the 763ER wouldn't have much trouble getting to LAX/SFO/SEA from LGA; the bigger issue might be the 360K lb pavement weight limit. But DL also has no shortage of 757s which could be configured appropriately for service offering Delta One to the West Coast and that mission is easily within the 757's capability.

I'd be willing to bet money that DL has planned for a potential future loosening of the LGA perimeter rule in its terminal plans. I'd also expect that capability for operating transcons from LGA to the West Coast is one of the design criteria for the NMA/797.

timz wrote:
Far as anyone knows, the rule dates from 1984. JFK and EWR didn't need protection then.


Well, 1984 is key because the 767 and 757 first entered airline service in 1982 and 1983 respectively, and they had the performance needed to make it from LGA to the West Coast. The earlier A300, DC-10, and L1011 could all operate from LGA but I don't believe they could make it as far (although the A300-600R probably could, and it entered service around the same time as the 767). The 727 couldn't make it much farther than DEN or possibly SLC; the court case which ultimately upheld the Port Authority's ability to impose the LGA perimeter was over WA's proposed SLC-LGA service.
 
User avatar
InnsbruckFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:16 pm

evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


321s might work, but also 319s and 737-700s. They have enough range, and the the runways at LGA are both 7000ft (+/- 3 feet), whereas SNA’s runway is 5700ft, and they have transcon flights.
Last edited by InnsbruckFlyer on Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last flown aircraft: DH8D OE-LGN < DH8D OE-LGI < E195 OE-LWE < DH8D OE-LGI < A320 D-AIUR < A320 D-AIZM < B738 PH-HZJ < B737 PH-XRD < B772 N766AN < B738 N855NN < B788 N45905 < A319 N808UA < A320 N482UA < B752 N19117
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:17 pm

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


Maybe not 321s, but definitely 319s and 737-700s. They have enough range, and the the runways at LGA are both 7000ft (+/- 3 feet), whereas SNA’s runway is 5700ft, and they have transcon flights.


Those will definitely work. Absolutely. WN, DL, and UA, and AA could all use one or two of those types. Delta could even do the 757 as mentioned above IF it were to happen before they were retired.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14150
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:21 pm

MO11 wrote:
timz wrote:
Beechtobus wrote:
the 1500 mile perimeter rule from LGA is. an artificial method of forcing airlines to use JFK (what was IDL) and to keep airlines from abandoning EWR.

Far as anyone knows, the rule dates from 1984. JFK and EWR didn't need protection then.


It was 2000 miles before 1984, then reduced to 1500 miles. EWR was pretty much abandoned until PeoplExpress showed up. DCA had a "gentlemen's agreement" until around 1981, when AA broke the agreement and announced that it would start DCA-DFW flying. The FAA, which owned the airport then, ended up passing an FAR which codified the perimeter rule.


Huh?

Maybe you should look through the OAG for the time just prior to PeoplExpresss . I see tons of service, I see AA and UA flying DC-10s and 747s to ORD, LAX, SFO, SJU. I see EA and DL flying A300s and L1011s to ATL, FLL, PBI, TPA, BDL, MIA,. I see Pan Am DC-10s to MIA, TPA and PBI, CO DC-10s to DEN etc..EWR had far better service, more frequency, to major airports like ATL, ORD, DEN, DTW, IAH, MSP etc.. than Kennedy.

http://www.departedflights.com/EWR81p1.html
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
RamblinMan
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:24 pm

YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


CHA-LGA only started within the last year... before that we had 2x daily to EWR. Now it's a (slightly) more convenient option for local NYC traffic, but no direct access to the massive UA transatlantic hub. It would be a far more efficient outcome for everyone if LGA traffic was focused on large O&D markets, and smaller cities like CHA and DSM were "relegated" to JFK and EWR service where the flights could be filled by both NYC-bound and connection traffic.
 
MR27122
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:00 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:40 pm

LGA must be the largest, in terms of pax, airport in the USA that is least accessible via public transport. Sorry if "off topic", but I can't think of any other airport---maybe LAX---that can't be gotten to via a train/tram/etc.

One question re: the "perimeter rule" & LGA's overall "on-time" performance. Due to the coveted LGA "slots", several flights are "place holders" upon airline "express" affiliates...thus the congestion never abates. Would lifting the perimeter-rule & the resulting mainline flights upon larger aircraft ease congestion? I "get" the want for service from NYC to much smaller cities/towns...I just glanced at LGA-Burlington & it has 3x Nonstop's on "Express" flights (yes it's ski season), I also looked at Charleston SC & it has 3x Nonstop's on "Express" flights...approx 250+ nonstop seats on 3 flights on a Thur in January to Charleston? It would "seem" as if those "slots" on flights to PHX/SLC/LAS would be preferable. Also, if a community can't support a nonstop flight to LGA...then it ought not have one & the pax go via a connection. LGA is problematical airport in the midst of a total terminal rebuild with no taxiway/runway "do over". Probably would've been better to invest in a minimal "layout" remodeling/build w/ runway extensions, etc....the "airport experience" at LGA has been "conditioned" into pax's & the only experience they truly want is to get the heck out of LGA, which could've/should've been the emphasis of the infrastructure/rebuild monies.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:52 pm

RamblinMan wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


CHA-LGA only started within the last year... before that we had 2x daily to EWR. Now it's a (slightly) more convenient option for local NYC traffic, but no direct access to the massive UA transatlantic hub. It would be a far more efficient outcome for everyone if LGA traffic was focused on large O&D markets, and smaller cities like CHA and DSM were "relegated" to JFK and EWR service where the flights could be filled by both NYC-bound and connection traffic.


"It would be a far more efficient outcome for everyone if LGA traffic was focused on large O&D markets, and smaller cities like CHA and DSM were "relegated" to JFK and EWR."
Yes-Yes-Yes, I have said all along that small cities having flights to LGA is a waste of very limited slots. Fly 30-50 people or 90-150 people, it should be obvious what is the best use of the slots and small cities could use EWR which can handle more traffic. Access to LGA is not a right.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:55 pm

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


321s might work, but also 319s and 737-700s. They have enough range, and the the runways at LGA are both 7000ft (+/- 3 feet), whereas SNA’s runway is 5700ft, and they have transcon flights.


SNA transcon flights are all east bound, enjoying the west to east prevailing winds, a big difference as opposed to east to west transcons facing headwinds.
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:56 pm

Interesting that the new central terminal has group IV gates only. That means that when the 757s and 767s are finally retired, the largest aircraft that will be able to be accommodated will be the 320/737 series. Folding wingtip variants and 797 might change that, of course.
 
blockski
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:13 pm

MR27122 wrote:
LGA must be the largest, in terms of pax, airport in the USA that is least accessible via public transport. Sorry if "off topic", but I can't think of any other airport---maybe LAX---that can't be gotten to via a train/tram/etc.


LAX doesn't have a train to the airport. It's by far the largest airport in the US without direct rail transit access, though they're building the line now.

Others busier than LGA without rail transit access include: LAS, CLT, MCO, IAH, and DTW.

Plenty of other airports have a dinky transit connection that isn't nearly as useful as the M60 or the Q70 buses to LGA. DFW has light rail now, but it's not nearly as useful in that region as the buses are to LGA; FLL has a shuttle bus to the Tri-Rail station, which has only a handful of commuter trains per day. Does that count as more transit access? I doubt it.
 
shaneam12
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:00 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:30 pm

evank516 wrote:
shaneam12 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

As I mentioned, the problem would be the A321s flying westbound from a 7,000 foot runway. It would take a payload hit. Probably a big one too. A321s are not that nimble on short runways, especially for long flights like LGA-LAX. Sure they can do LGA-ATL/CLT-MCO, but we're talking half or less than half of the distance.


I would assume AA's 321-Ts would be able to make the trip since they already have much less seating than traditional A321s. In addition, any A321 neos that enter service with AA would be able to use LGA's runways (considering Alaska's neos fly to LAX and SFO from DCA, which has an even shorter runway than LGA).


DCA's runway 1/19 is actually slightly longer than LGA at 7,169 feet long.


1/19 has 7,169 feet paved, however, its usable runway length is 6,869 feet.

Edit: I just checked and I was incorrect. Apparently, the length is actually 7,169 feet.
Last edited by shaneam12 on Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:35 pm

evank516 wrote:
InnsbruckFlyer wrote:
evank516 wrote:

Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


Maybe not 321s, but definitely 319s and 737-700s. They have enough range, and the the runways at LGA are both 7000ft (+/- 3 feet), whereas SNA’s runway is 5700ft, and they have transcon flights.


Those will definitely work. Absolutely. WN, DL, and UA, and AA could all use one or two of those types. Delta could even do the 757 as mentioned above IF it were to happen before they were retired.


Howzabout A220-300's?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:36 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
WN732 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


738's would do just fine on these routes, and especially the MAX.


In theory, yes...but DL and UA fly internationally-configured planes on NYC-LAX/SFO (UA uses 752s, 772s, and 788/781s with an occasional 789). DL in particular uses planes that would take a severe hit from LGA that they don't from JFK.


It's an aside, but both 757s and particularly 767-300s were designed to lift their MTOW from a 7000 ft sea level runway. They both also have shorter wings than optimum to fit LGA gates. The 764 was a disappointment in this regard requiring about 7500 ft for MTOW takeoff.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7117
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:42 pm

YYZLGA wrote:
Interesting that the new central terminal has group IV gates only. That means that when the 757s and 767s are finally retired, the largest aircraft that will be able to be accommodated will be the 320/737 series. Folding wingtip variants and 797 might change that, of course.


That's not really surprising; due to the pavement loading limits, it's unlikely that A330s or 787s could operate from LGA with economically viable payloads.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:49 pm

SteelChair wrote:
evank516 wrote:
InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Maybe not 321s, but definitely 319s and 737-700s. They have enough range, and the the runways at LGA are both 7000ft (+/- 3 feet), whereas SNA’s runway is 5700ft, and they have transcon flights.


Those will definitely work. Absolutely. WN, DL, and UA, and AA could all use one or two of those types. Delta could even do the 757 as mentioned above IF it were to happen before they were retired.


Howzabout A220-300's?


Max runway needed is 6,200 feet for the A 220-300, only 4,800 needed for the 220-100.
 
MR27122
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:00 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:02 pm

blockski wrote:
MR27122 wrote:
LGA must be the largest, in terms of pax, airport in the USA that is least accessible via public transport. Sorry if "off topic", but I can't think of any other airport---maybe LAX---that can't be gotten to via a train/tram/etc.


LAX doesn't have a train to the airport. It's by far the largest airport in the US without direct rail transit access, though they're building the line now.

Others busier than LGA without rail transit access include: LAS, CLT, MCO, IAH, and DTW.


Thanks! The difference w/ the airports you referenced & LGA is that the Grand Central Parkway is the sole "access roadway" & it's "purpose" is basically a "connector" between the City & the Triborough Bridge (i.e. Robert F. Kennedy Bridge) & FDR Drive on "one side"---and access to the Whitestone Expressway, Cross Island Parkway, & LIE on the "other side". JFK has the same "problem" with the Belt Parkway. The Grand Central & Belt are "ancient" (albeit JFK does have a rail line). LGA is totally "boxed in" & dependent upon the Grand Central. The "best" means was/is the water-taxi to the 34th Street Heliport (might be wrong on that)....but, the only way to access the water-taxi is by getting to LGA's Marine Terminal.

In some regards, LAX is also awful, but at least the 405 is like 4-5 lanes & surface streets are a realistic alternative.
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:08 pm

shaneam12 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
shaneam12 wrote:

I would assume AA's 321-Ts would be able to make the trip since they already have much less seating than traditional A321s. In addition, any A321 neos that enter service with AA would be able to use LGA's runways (considering Alaska's neos fly to LAX and SFO from DCA, which has an even shorter runway than LGA).


DCA's runway 1/19 is actually slightly longer than LGA at 7,169 feet long.


1/19 has 7,169 feet paved, however, its usable runway length is 6,869 feet.

Edit: I just checked and I was incorrect. Apparently, the length is actually 7,169 feet.


I actually thought that too way back when. It must have changed in recent times because I could swear I saw 6,869 in the Mid-2000s
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:31 pm

evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


The A321neo needs 6500ft to take off so technically it could make it? I'm by no means an expert but would you leave just 500ft to spare assuming you're taking off at MTOW?
A350/CSeries = bae
 
IADCA
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:47 pm

evank516 wrote:
shaneam12 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

DCA's runway 1/19 is actually slightly longer than LGA at 7,169 feet long.


1/19 has 7,169 feet paved, however, its usable runway length is 6,869 feet.

Edit: I just checked and I was incorrect. Apparently, the length is actually 7,169 feet.


I actually thought that too way back when. It must have changed in recent times because I could swear I saw 6,869 in the Mid-2000s


The 1/19 DCA extension was around 2011. I believe it was originally supposed to just be an RSA extension, but it's now on the FAA diagram as usable.
 
twaconnie
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Transcon's are not always full anyway. I was on one to LAX from JFK during the summer had only 80 pax. It was the best flight ever had,3 seats to myself.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:06 am

MR27122 wrote:
LGA must be the largest, in terms of pax, airport in the USA that is least accessible via public transport. Sorry if "off topic", but I can't think of any other airport---maybe LAX---that can't be gotten to via a train/tram/etc.

One question re: the "perimeter rule" & LGA's overall "on-time" performance. Due to the coveted LGA "slots", several flights are "place holders" upon airline "express" affiliates...thus the congestion never abates. Would lifting the perimeter-rule & the resulting mainline flights upon larger aircraft ease congestion? I "get" the want for service from NYC to much smaller cities/towns...I just glanced at LGA-Burlington & it has 3x Nonstop's on "Express" flights (yes it's ski season), I also looked at Charleston SC & it has 3x Nonstop's on "Express" flights...approx 250+ nonstop seats on 3 flights on a Thur in January to Charleston? It would "seem" as if those "slots" on flights to PHX/SLC/LAS would be preferable. Also, if a community can't support a nonstop flight to LGA...then it ought not have one & the pax go via a connection. LGA is problematical airport in the midst of a total terminal rebuild with no taxiway/runway "do over". Probably would've been better to invest in a minimal "layout" remodeling/build w/ runway extensions, etc....the "airport experience" at LGA has been "conditioned" into pax's & the only experience they truly want is to get the heck out of LGA, which could've/should've been the emphasis of the infrastructure/rebuild monies.


The real problems, in my opinion, are taxiway congestion (if Runway 4 is for takeoffs, there's a park on the other side of the Grand Central Parkway from which one can planespot and see the takeoff line) and the lack of a third runway that's at least 8,600 feet. For this, Rikers' Island, the major NYC jail, is probably in the way and a new massive city jail would be needed somewhere else as a replacement. I have to wonder if gate space is also an issue.

Also, even if 13/31 has a second runway added to the north, the approach patterns couldn't change because of JFK not too far away.

That said, one thing that could be done is to mandate that all commercial flights into and out of LGA be on aircraft with at least 68 seats (basically, CRJ7/E170 or larger), which would force the use of larger regional jets/turboprops, OR upgrades to mainline.
 
master14225
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 6:38 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:14 am

Couldn't DL or WS do LGA-YWG? YWG is pretty much in range of the LGA perimeter and I think it's a bigger market than YHZ.
 
User avatar
antoniemey
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:26 am

cheapgreek wrote:
RamblinMan wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


CHA-LGA only started within the last year... before that we had 2x daily to EWR. Now it's a (slightly) more convenient option for local NYC traffic, but no direct access to the massive UA transatlantic hub. It would be a far more efficient outcome for everyone if LGA traffic was focused on large O&D markets, and smaller cities like CHA and DSM were "relegated" to JFK and EWR service where the flights could be filled by both NYC-bound and connection traffic.


"It would be a far more efficient outcome for everyone if LGA traffic was focused on large O&D markets, and smaller cities like CHA and DSM were "relegated" to JFK and EWR."
Yes-Yes-Yes, I have said all along that small cities having flights to LGA is a waste of very limited slots. Fly 30-50 people or 90-150 people, it should be obvious what is the best use of the slots and small cities could use EWR which can handle more traffic. Access to LGA is not a right.


I'm sorry, have you tried flying an RJ into EWR any time in the last decade? The Flow Control monster will get you 99 times out of 100.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:56 am

The airlines need to sue the port authority. They should be able to use their slots as they see fit. Why does Chattanooga deserve LGA service but not Phoenix?
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:11 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
The airlines need to sue the port authority. They should be able to use their slots as they see fit. Why does Chattanooga deserve LGA service but not Phoenix?


Its all politics, congressman billy bob wants his small city to have N/S flights to LGA and DCA. It makes him or her look good to the locals and it helps to cement their re-election. In the business world, this would never happen.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:41 pm

Thats why a 6-8 runways LGA is needed to fit everyone’s need
 
evank516
Posts: 2170
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LaGuardia Departure Limits

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:51 pm

OA940 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
To some extent, it's also about protecting flights from smaller destinations to LGA. You can be sure that flights to places like Chattanooga or Des Moines or Dayton or Ottawa would be dropped pretty quickly if airlines could replace them with 321s to LAX and SFO. Whether that's good public policy is another matter.


Yes, but I highly doubt the 321s can fly LGA-LAX/SFO without a penalty. LGA's runways are too short.


The A321neo needs 6500ft to take off so technically it could make it? I'm by no means an expert but would you leave just 500ft to spare assuming you're taking off at MTOW?


The weather in the Northeast is very volatile and we get lots of wet weather, especially from November through May, with a huge amount of cloudy rainy days from March through May. December to March includes snow as well. 6,500 feet or runway may be good on a decent dry day, but we have a lot of days with contaminated runways which will require more than 6,500.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6492
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:27 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The airlines need to sue the port authority. They should be able to use their slots as they see fit. Why does Chattanooga deserve LGA service but not Phoenix?


Its all politics, congressman billy bob wants his small city to have N/S flights to LGA and DCA. It makes him or her look good to the locals and it helps to cement their re-election. In the business world, this would never happen.


Congressman Billy Bob has no influence on the PANYNJ. It’s been sued over and the PA won in court. It’s a feature, not a bug.

GF
 
ScottB
Posts: 7117
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:30 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
The airlines need to sue the port authority. They should be able to use their slots as they see fit. Why does Chattanooga deserve LGA service but not Phoenix?


This was already litigated in 1986 in Western Air Lines vs. PANYNJ and the airlines are no more likely to win today than they were then: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 2/2362360/

master14225 wrote:
Couldn't DL or WS do LGA-YWG? YWG is pretty much in range of the LGA perimeter and I think it's a bigger market than YHZ.


It's definitely within range, but it has to be a tiny market and for DL it would overfly two hubs. WS doesn't have suitable aircraft for the market size and they'd be better-off routing any traffic which might connect at LGA via YYZ.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: LaGuardia Perimeter Rule

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:47 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The airlines need to sue the port authority. They should be able to use their slots as they see fit. Why does Chattanooga deserve LGA service but not Phoenix?


Its all politics, congressman billy bob wants his small city to have N/S flights to LGA and DCA. It makes him or her look good to the locals and it helps to cement their re-election. In the business world, this would never happen.


Congressman Billy Bob has no influence on the PANYNJ. It’s been sued over and the PA won in court. It’s a feature, not a bug.

GF


Politicians have a lot influence and much of it goes on behind closed doors. There is no logic for the way slots are used which at LGA and DCA and it is not a feature but something the airlines and the majority of the public hate. In the real business world, this type of allocating of slots would never happen.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: autopiloton, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Brianpr3, EagleStar, eamondzhang, EXMEMWIDGET, FLJ, Francoflier, Fuling, gen2stew, lightsaber, melpax, MikeyESSA, PatrickZ80, qf789, sabenapilot, smi0006, Taxi645, tobsw, trees, TYSflyer, VS11 and 238 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos