Nicknuzzii wrote:

While EWR is no longer slot restricted, it is still constrained by it's gate space. More specifically in terminal B, the international terminal. But despite routes being dropped over the past year, no new space has been available for the expansion of airlines. Some notable drops include,

DL- 7x CDG, 7x AMS
PF- 7x STN, 7x CDG, planned massive expansion
WW- 7x KEF, planned 14x weekly expansion
DY- 7x ORY
ET- 3x ABJ
LY- Second flight moved to morning (off peak time)

This totals up to a minimum of 8 fewer international flights a day, most of which were during peak hours, but yet TK amongst other airlines are not able to obtain gate space? What is happening to it?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Thank you for all your helpful responses but I am seeing a common theme. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody really knows where all the former international slots went?

enilria wrote:

Airlines have told me it’s it not just gates. The FAA also refuses additional arrivals and departures in peak times. So it’s gates and then a borderline slot system. Since UA has so many grandfathered slots they have a lot more flexibility, but they can’t grow either as I understand it.

The airport needs to be re-slotted but the FAA is against it. However, they sure have a hell of a time moving traffic during peak times. It would better for all involved if they would just re-slot.

LOT767301ER wrote:

The airport needs to be re-slotted but the FAA is against it. However, they sure have a hell of a time moving traffic during peak times. It would better for all involved if they would just re-slot.

UA PR department is on here? Nice.

ss31 wrote:

If growth is warranted then airlines can upguage aircraft.

leader1 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Airlines have told me it’s it not just gates. The FAA also refuses additional arrivals and departures in peak times. So it’s gates and then a borderline slot system. Since UA has so many grandfathered slots they have a lot more flexibility, but they can’t grow either as I understand it.

This is correct. EWR is a Level 2 Slot Coordinated airport. This basically means that while there are no hard airline slots, they still must have their schedules approved by the FAA before hand. From what I have been told, they won't allow EWR to have more than around 77 flights an hour.

AirKevin wrote:

ss31 wrote:

If growth is warranted then airlines can upguage aircraft.

And if they're already operating their largest aircraft?

MIflyer12 wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

ss31 wrote:

If growth is warranted then airlines can upguage aircraft.

And if they're already operating their largest aircraft?

UA isn't. Look at the average gauge at EWR vs. [email protected] Kicking some destinations to IAD was just a tiny start,

N62NA wrote:

The new Terminal 1 (replacement for Terminal A) might help out by getting DL out of Terminal B.

ss31 wrote:

LOT767301ER wrote:

The airport needs to be re-slotted but the FAA is against it. However, they sure have a hell of a time moving traffic during peak times. It would better for all involved if they would just re-slot.

UA PR department is on here? Nice.

I agree EWR needs to be re-slotted. No reason ATC delay program should be applied on days with great flying weather. If growth is warranted then airlines can upguage aircraft.

N649DL wrote:

The Port Authority needs to task UAL with that one with re-banking EWR. There is a higher amount of downtime (EG: 11am to 1pm) with ops during the day and in the late evening compared to the mornings, late afternoons, and early evenings. There are times you can be at EWR and think it's surprisingly dead, then come the late afternoon it's a total mess.

UALifer wrote:

N649DL wrote:

The Port Authority needs to task UAL with that one with re-banking EWR. There is a higher amount of downtime (EG: 11am to 1pm) with ops during the day and in the late evening compared to the mornings, late afternoons, and early evenings. There are times you can be at EWR and think it's surprisingly dead, then come the late afternoon it's a total mess.

The issues at EWR were brought about by Port Authority and the FAA, not United. It’s their problem to fix, not United’s. UA is going to continue to schedule the EWR hub to maximize profitability, not to solve a problem that isn’t theirs to solve.

N649DL wrote:

UALifer wrote:

N649DL wrote:

The Port Authority needs to task UAL with that one with re-banking EWR. There is a higher amount of downtime (EG: 11am to 1pm) with ops during the day and in the late evening compared to the mornings, late afternoons, and early evenings. There are times you can be at EWR and think it's surprisingly dead, then come the late afternoon it's a total mess.

The issues at EWR were brought about by Port Authority and the FAA, not United. It’s their problem to fix, not United’s. UA is going to continue to schedule the EWR hub to maximize profitability, not to solve a problem that isn’t theirs to solve.

I said UAL should consider re-banking EWR to allocate during some down times during day. The PANYNJ is obviously a seriously corrupted organization but that has nothing to do with how UAL banks it's hub.

leader1 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Airlines have told me it’s it not just gates. The FAA also refuses additional arrivals and departures in peak times. So it’s gates and then a borderline slot system. Since UA has so many grandfathered slots they have a lot more flexibility, but they can’t grow either as I understand it.

This is correct. EWR is a Level 2 Slot Coordinated airport. This basically means that while there are no hard airline slots, they still must have their schedules approved by the FAA before hand. From what I have been told, they won't allow EWR to have more than around 77 flights an hour.

The FAA is continuing to monitor operations and delays at EWR and to identify ways to improve performance metrics and operational efficiency, and achieve delay reductions in a Level 2 environment. Demand for access to EWR and the New York City area remains high. Recent requests for flights at EWR have exceeded the scheduling limits in the 8 a.m. and 1300-2159 local hours. The FAA has advised carriers in prior seasons that it would not be able to accommodate all requests for new or retimed operations in peak hours and worked with carriers to identify times that were available. In some limited cases, carriers were able to swap with other airlines for their preferred times in the peak for winter 2018. Carriers may continue to seek swaps in order to operate within the peak. However, the FAA also continues to seek the voluntary cooperation of all carriers operating in peak hours to retime operations out of the peak to improve performance at EWR.

For the summer 2019 season, the hourly scheduling limit remains at 79 Start Printed Page 49157operations and 43 operations per half-hour. To help with a balance between arrivals and departures, the maximum number of scheduled arrivals or departures, respectively, is 43 in an hour and 24 in a half-hour. This would allow some higher levels of operations in certain periods (not to exceed the hourly limits) and some recovery from lower demand in adjacent periods. The FAA will accept flights above the limits if the flights were operated on a regular basis in summer 2018, but again, the FAA seeks cooperation of carriers to retime operations, to the extent feasible, out of the peak period. Additionally, the FAA will consider whether demand exceeds the limits in adjacent periods and consider average demand before determining whether there is availability for new flights in a particular period. However, the operational performance of the airport is unlikely to improve unless peak demand is reduced and schedules remain within the airport's arrival and departure limits.

The FAA notes that despite efforts to facilitate voluntary scheduling cooperation at EWR, and reductions in the hourly scheduling limits,[4] average demand for summer 2018 in the afternoon and evening hours remains at 81 operations per hour as it was in summer 2017. There are periods when the demand in half-hours or consecutive half-hours exceeds the optimum runway capacity and the scheduling limits in this notice. The imbalance of scheduled arrivals and departures in certain periods has contributed to increased congestion and delays when the demand exceeds the arrival or departure rates. In particular, retiming a minimal number of arrivals in the early afternoon hours from the 1400 local hour to the 1300 and 1200 hours could have significant delay reduction benefits and help preserve the Level 2 designation at EWR.

Based on historical demand, the FAA anticipates the 0700 to 0859 and 1330 to 2159 periods to be unavailable for new flights. Consistent with the WSG, carriers should be prepared to adjust schedules to meet the hourly limits in order to minimize potential congestion and delay. Carriers are again reminded that runway approval must be obtained from the FAA in addition to any requirements for approval from airport terminal or other facilities prior to operation.

N649DL wrote:

UALifer wrote:

N649DL wrote:

The Port Authority needs to task UAL with that one with re-banking EWR. There is a higher amount of downtime (EG: 11am to 1pm) with ops during the day and in the late evening compared to the mornings, late afternoons, and early evenings. There are times you can be at EWR and think it's surprisingly dead, then come the late afternoon it's a total mess.

The issues at EWR were brought about by Port Authority and the FAA, not United. It’s their problem to fix, not United’s. UA is going to continue to schedule the EWR hub to maximize profitability, not to solve a problem that isn’t theirs to solve.

I said UAL should consider re-banking EWR to allocate during some down times during day. The PANYNJ is obviously a seriously corrupted organization but that has nothing to do with how UAL banks it's hub.

strfyr51 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

UALifer wrote:

The issues at EWR were brought about by Port Authority and the FAA, not United. It’s their problem to fix, not United’s. UA is going to continue to schedule the EWR hub to maximize profitability, not to solve a problem that isn’t theirs to solve.

I said UAL should consider re-banking EWR to allocate during some down times during day. The PANYNJ is obviously a seriously corrupted organization but that has nothing to do with how UAL banks it's hub.

The Port authority was all for United Leaving JFK for EWR right after the merger, " No Problems" they said. JFK was up to their ears in flights at that time. Now??
JFK EWR and LGA are up to their ears in flights. I guess they'll HAVE to upgrade Stewart out on Long Island .. Isn't there still Floyd Bennett Field somewhere?

STT757 wrote:

Regarding Terminal B, the Port Authority announced they’re beginning the planning for replacing Terminal B with a new Terminal 2.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/documents/P ... ssessment/

Moving all the terminals further West makes way for a new third parallel runway as was outlined
By the RPA. That would allow for simultaneous landings or departures. The new Terminal 2 looks huge!

Also they’re building a New Airtrain and the PATH extension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

aemoreira1981 wrote:

EWR, and possibly SFO, need to go to Level 3 as JFK is. But the problem is that JFK has more gates capable of handling wide-bodies.

ITB wrote:

The last paragraph is particularly illuminating. No additional flights at EWR are to be scheduled from 0700 to 0859 and 1330 to 2159. So, Newark is currently considered maxed out for 10.5 hours a day, or nearly 62% of its peak hours. As such, the Notice seems to convey the impression EWR is rapidly approaching the moment when it will designated an IATA Level 3 facility, which means it will be slot controlled. It appears it is no longer a question of "if" but "when." But exactly when is unclear and will, undoubtedly, involve many factors. It may be several years away or may not. Nevertheless, with many 50-seater flights already having been up gauged to 76-seaters, any additional growth at EWR likely will mean more flights, further stressing an already constrained facility.

STT757 wrote:

Regarding Terminal B, the Port Authority announced they’re beginning the planning for replacing Terminal B with a new Terminal 2. Moving all the terminals further West makes way for a new third parallel runway as was outlined
By the RPA. That would allow for simultaneous landings or departures.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/documents/P ... ssessment/

Also they’re building a New Airtrain and the PATH extension.

jfklganyc wrote:

No offense to your agency or state...but no one that lives here or knows the PA actually believes a third parallel will get built. If they proposed it tomorrow they would be looking at decades of litigation.

jfklganyc wrote:

That is your Agency. That is your State

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The real problem is the availability of wide-body gates at Terminal B. Even though it's an international terminal, many of the gates cannot handle wide-bodies. Hopefully Terminal 1 is able to handle international flights (aside from those from Canada other than from YTZ).

I also notice that LY has a really inefficient operation at EWR, where a plane, usually a 747, sits for nearly 16 hours (when it isn't the Sabbath) before the return flight. I am actually surprised that LY wasn't able to hold onto its early evening gate, although EWR has been upgauged to a B789 and a B744, instead of a B772 and a B789.

jfklganyc wrote:

I have been reading his posts for 15 years.

Just a hunch, If I was a betting man...which I am not

Either way, he is the biggest (and to my knowledge) only Port Authority fanboy on this site

jfklganyc wrote:

I don’t care if he works for the Port Authority or not.

It is his agency because he is their biggest fanboy and defender on this site.

A lot of people have suspected that I work for Delta or JetBlue for the same reasons. It comes with the territory I guess

A third parallel runway at Newark is ridiculous given the financial state and political gridlock at the PA.

A few years ago he claimed that terminal 1 at Newark would open before LGA. Given the state of finances in New Jersey at the time and the lack of political will to spend money, that claim was also dubious

Many people on this site don’t live in the New York area… And they take information like that seriously

For those of us that do live here, and understand what is happening politically and financially at the agency, it is important to add color to statements like “a new airtrain is being built.”

At present, the only project that is assured at EWR is Terminal 1.

Everything else is a wish list item… Even the capital projects over the next decade.

The agency’s financial and political turmoil assures that anything beyond final approval is just a wish list item

leader1 wrote:

EWR should never have been lifted from Level 3. Even when there was "improved performance", it still ranked dead last in on-time arrival. SFO should have been Level 3 long ago. I also think BOS, ORD and PHL should get slotted. BOS's performance has gotten worse the last few years and there isn't much that can be done with that runway configuration. PHL is basically EWR without the airspace issues. Performance has gotten better, but only because it has 500 fewer daily flights than it did 10-15 years ago. That's going to make a big difference. But there are still times during the day when the airport is over-scheduled and when the weather gets bad, they can't run converging ops. And while ORD's performance has drastically improved with the runway realignment, it is still among the worst-performing airports. Even with the reconfiguration, they can't beat the bad weather and Chicago gets a lot of that.

muralir wrote:

Not to hijack this thread, but I disagree about ORD. The massive runway reconfiguration and expansion has significantly improved operations, to the point where now it's severely gate-constrained, but not runway-constrained. Furthermore, they've also just opened a huge central deicing facility (2nd largest in the world) to improve operations during winter weather, which is typically when Chicago gets weather-related delays. While the gate situation still limits ORD's ability to add flights, I don't believe gate capacity is considered in the FAA's slot control decisions (please correct me if I'm wrong).