The LGA Terminal B headhouse is finally opening this weekend! I am so excited to try out the new headhouse soon. It is very impressive to drive by. It is said that it is 50% bigger than the old headhouse.

The pictures look amazing. http://www.salamancapress.com/news/state/walsh-construction-celebrates-unveiling-of-laguardia-airports-new-terminal-b-headhouse/article_1fbe78c4-5a9d-5e50-b597-c8c32b101f24.html

What will this new Laguardia hold for airlines:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

AA: I have no idea what AA will do. What do you guys think? I personally would like AA to add more to JFK in the short term. T8 needs to get crowded again.

UA: UA will probably stay the same. LGA is a spillway for their EWR operations. Maybe more IAH/DEN flights.

NK and F9: Will probably move back to Terminal B (once the west opens) as Delta is getting their own remodel. F9 could bring back Denver.

B6: I have no idea why B6 is in the marine air terminal (A). In my opinion, B6 should move back to Terminal B and let Terminal A become a regional concourse similar to LAX.

WS/AC: Probably no change except maybe WS moving to Terminal B.

DL: TBD

Let me know what you think.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The LGA Terminal B headhouse is finally opening this weekend! I am so excited to try out the new headhouse soon. It is very impressive to drive by. It is said that it is 50% bigger than the old headhouse.

The pictures look amazing. http://www.salamancapress.com/news/state/walsh-construction-celebrates-unveiling-of-laguardia-airports-new-terminal-b-headhouse/article_1fbe78c4-5a9d-5e50-b597-c8c32b101f24.html

What will this new Laguardia hold for airlines:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

AA: I have no idea what AA will do. What do you guys think? I personally would like AA to add more to JFK in the short term. T8 needs to get crowded again.

UA: UA will probably stay the same. LGA is a spillway for their EWR operations. Maybe more IAH/DEN flights.

NK and F9: Will probably move back to Terminal B (once the west opens) as Delta is getting their own remodel. F9 could bring back Denver.

B6: I have no idea why B6 is in the marine air terminal (A). In my opinion, B6 should move back to Terminal B and let Terminal A become a regional concourse similar to LAX.

WS/AC: Probably no change except maybe WS moving to Terminal B.

DL: TBD

Let me know what you think.

B6 is out in the MAT because it works for them. Trying to do a connection from it to the main terminals is an absolute nightmare. Having regionals out there, as it was before, would be a nightmare for onwards connections. Did it during the shuttle days, not fun.

LGA is slot-restricted yes? So if there are any big route changes it's going to be because they're cancelling service to one city to start another. Unless airlines are able to somehow buy them from another airline. The changes should make the experience better for the passengers but I don't expect there will be a net increase in the number of flights.

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Also, isn't AA flying to PHX, BZN, EGE, FCA, JAC, MTJ, AUA, and NAS? All are past the perimeter rule.

It’s been a long time 6 years plus, but I hope the phrase “game changer” goes away. So over used.

Meanwhile the LaGuardia (LGA)ideas won’t happen. Yes the G is a capital.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Also, isn't AA flying to PHX, BZN, EGE, FCA, JAC, MTJ, AUA, and NAS? All are past the perimeter rule.

All of those AA routes are Saturday only flights, IIRC. Saturday the perimeter rule does not apply.

The new LGA terminal looks incredible. WN is one of my preferred airlines, and I'll definitely have to take them on my next trip to New York City so I can check out this world class new terminal!

The Port Authority really should modify the perimeter rule to be anywhere in the USA or pre-cleared airports in Canada...if you have the slots. The limitation might be runway length. Some trans-cons could definitely shift to LGA. A real wild-card could be Air Canada...as if you eliminate the perimeter rule, would they consider A321 YVR-LGA service? This would not hurt JFK as JFK could see more international destinations open up.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Port Authority really should modify the perimeter rule to be anywhere in the USA or pre-cleared airports in Canada...if you have the slots. The limitation might be runway length. Some trans-cons could definitely shift to LGA. A real wild-card could be Air Canada...as if you eliminate the perimeter rule, would they consider A321 YVR-LGA service? This would not hurt JFK as JFK could see more international destinations open up.

AC pulled out of JFK some time ago, so relaxing the perimeter rule to allow YVR-LGA wouldn't hurt JFK in the slightest except for the fact that DL would probably move their summer JFK-YVR flight to LGA if it comes back. They consolidated to EWR and LGA from what I recall with EWR handling their beyond perimeter flights to YVR and YYC and LGA handling their shorter flights within the perimeter.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Also, isn't AA flying to PHX, BZN, EGE, FCA, JAC, MTJ, AUA, and NAS? All are past the perimeter rule.

Unlike DCA I don't know that there is any mechanism to petition (the Port Authority) for exemption. If WN wants to fly to LAS other than Saturdays it can use another NYC airport - just like every other carrier.

As for whether this is an efficient use of the LGA assets, or more broadly contributes to efficiencies in the PANYNJ NYC airport system, lots of ink has been spilled on that question over the years. Google it.

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The pictures look amazing. http://www.salamancapress.com/news/state/walsh-construction-celebrates-unveiling-of-laguardia-airports-new-terminal-b-headhouse/article_1fbe78c4-5a9d-5e50-b597-c8c32b101f24.html
Let me know what you think.

Boo! Europeans can't see the pictures!

The only time i've flown to LGA was my very first trip to NYC from AMS, with US. I remember arriving there (after connecting at PHL) and i thought: jeez, this place is old. Really curious how the place looks now, 9 years later. When heading back home I remember the departure area being very white/grey-ish and it smelled like old socks in there.

Let's hope LGA will one day get a link to the subway system, 'cause it's the only airport of the big three that doesn't have a (good) (subway)train connection.

Apologies but can somebody explain to me what a 'headhouse' is? Can't access the article.Would it be what the rest of the planet calls a terminal? I know LGA has been undergoing some tremendous works of late...

evank516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Port Authority really should modify the perimeter rule to be anywhere in the USA or pre-cleared airports in Canada...if you have the slots. The limitation might be runway length. Some trans-cons could definitely shift to LGA. A real wild-card could be Air Canada...as if you eliminate the perimeter rule, would they consider A321 YVR-LGA service? This would not hurt JFK as JFK could see more international destinations open up.

AC pulled out of JFK some time ago, so relaxing the perimeter rule to allow YVR-LGA wouldn't hurt JFK in the slightest except for the fact that DL would probably move their summer JFK-YVR flight to LGA if it comes back. They consolidated to EWR and LGA from what I recall with EWR handling their beyond perimeter flights to YVR and YYC and LGA handling their shorter flights within the perimeter.

Do keep in mind though that YVR-EWR is on a wide-body. The smallest wide-bodies in the AC fleet are the A330-300 and the Boeing 787-8 (at suspension, AC548/9 was flown on a mix of B788/B789 equipment in a move ultimately forcing CX off the JFK-YVR city pair).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Port Authority really should modify the perimeter rule to be anywhere in the USA or pre-cleared airports in Canada...if you have the slots. The limitation might be runway length. Some trans-cons could definitely shift to LGA. A real wild-card could be Air Canada...as if you eliminate the perimeter rule, would they consider A321 YVR-LGA service? This would not hurt JFK as JFK could see more international destinations open up.

AC pulled out of JFK some time ago, so relaxing the perimeter rule to allow YVR-LGA wouldn't hurt JFK in the slightest except for the fact that DL would probably move their summer JFK-YVR flight to LGA if it comes back. They consolidated to EWR and LGA from what I recall with EWR handling their beyond perimeter flights to YVR and YYC and LGA handling their shorter flights within the perimeter.

Do keep in mind though that YVR-EWR is on a wide-body. The smallest wide-bodies in the AC fleet are the A330-300 and the Boeing 787-8 (at suspension, AC548/9 was flown on a mix of B788/B789 equipment in a move ultimately forcing CX off the JFK-YVR city pair).

AC pulled out of Kennedy shortly after we left in 2015.

AC 548/549 was a mixture of A319’s and containerized A321’s during the peak winter months at JFK

AC 585/584 JFK-YYC was always A319’s during the winter season and switched over to E-190’s most of the year.

If new service is added to LGA, AC should have no problems on flight ops / fleet side.

Leej wrote:

Apologies but can somebody explain to me what a 'headhouse' is? Can't access the article.Would it be what the rest of the planet calls a terminal? I know LGA has been undergoing some tremendous works of late...

Correct the headhouse is kinda a fancy term for the ticketing and baggage claim area.

It means when you are delayed you are at least delayed in a nice new terminal. I don't miss the LGA delays and conga lines of planes.

Polot wrote:

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

bpat777 wrote:

Leej wrote:

Apologies but can somebody explain to me what a 'headhouse' is? Can't access the article.Would it be what the rest of the planet calls a terminal? I know LGA has been undergoing some tremendous works of late...

Correct the headhouse is kinda a fancy term for the ticketing and baggage claim area.

More specifically the name is derived from old railroad stations. The head house was the street side building where ticketing occurred/passengers waited/concession and offices were found etc with the open rail yard behind it where boarding would occur. With aviation it is the main landside entrance building that the concourses (some airports use the word terminal interchangeably, although terminals technically describe the entire building-headhouse+concourses) branch off of.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Polot wrote:

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

The perimeter rule makes sense, but with flights already to DEN, would it really hurt that much to change the rules to allow some SWA flights to LAS?

Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

Yup, still only two runways, new terminal or not. Like trying to stuff two pounds of liver in a a one pound bag. LGA is great for limited domestic service and its greatest appeal is its close proximity to the city.

.. Ummm ... "HEADHOUSE" ? What does that mean?

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.


Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

It's possible yes....and I forgot to mention (and agree with you) that the pandemic may result in airlines shedding some slots used for regional services that may not come back and apply them toward transcon, at which point, the competition will be fierce with DL, AA, B6, and UA all vying for this.

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Polot wrote:

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

And therein lies the problem. Those folks in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse would likely see some of their LGA service cut in favor of those Outside-Perimeter markets, and they'll raise hell with Cuomo over that. And even though it's a PANYNJ rule (and not federal like DCA), there would be a lot of politicians in the Northeast that wouldn't be too happy losing their link to LGA.

Truth be told, for West Coast, JFK isn't that bad. On a good day (rare), I can get from LGA to Penn Station in 20 minutes by cab, but it's often in the 40 minute range. I typically budget about 50 minutes to get from JFK to Penn Station (via Jamaica/LIRR). However, LGA sees a good bit of same-day/maybe one overnight business traffic, while West Coast traffic tends to be more than just a single night, which makes time a little less of a commodity.

Cointrin330 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

It's possible yes....and I forgot to mention (and agree with you) that the pandemic may result in airlines shedding some slots used for regional services that may not come back and apply them toward transcon, at which point, the competition will be fierce with DL, AA, B6, and UA all vying for this.

Exactly.

Use that opportunity to create a new onboard business class using A321’s.

There’s more that enough profit to go around especially considering the larger numbers of passengers who will continue to fly to JFK for their international connections.

Let’s hope LaGuardia Gateway Partners will actually improve the LGA experience. No more passengers running on the Grand Central Parkway.

deltairlines wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Those folks in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse would likely see some of their LGA service cut in favor of those Outside-Perimeter markets, and they'll raise hell with Cuomo over that. And even though it's a PANYNJ rule (and not federal like DCA), there would be a lot of politicians in the Northeast that wouldn't be too happy losing their link to LGA.

Truth be told, for West Coast, JFK isn't that bad. On a good day (rare), I can get from LGA to Penn Station in 20 minutes by cab, but it's often in the 40 minute range. I typically budget about 50 minutes to get from JFK to Penn Station (via Jamaica/LIRR). However, LGA sees a good bit of same-day/maybe one overnight business traffic, while West Coast traffic tends to be more than just a single night, which makes time a little less of a commodity.

JFK is not bad at all. Me personally I find it easier to travel to EWR than JFK or LGA. NJ Transit from Penn station to EWR or the Newark Express bus from the Port Authority bus terminal is 25 minutes.

I’m glad LGA has installed new bridges from the terminal to East Elmhurst but it’s only a matter of time before people start complaining about increased traffic on Ditmars Blvd.

My real wish is to have the new Airtrain travel down the Grand Central / Van Wyck to the Jamaica Airtrain station. Take some pressure off both airports by having a simple connection between the two.

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Most of the people in this thread have completely missed the point. The new terminal is just providing more space for the passengers with modern amenities and security in mind. The airfield is still the same size. The airspace is still the same.


LGA is still slot restricted, and the new terminal does not allow for more slots (that is an airfield and airspace limitation, not a terminal limitation). Growth is going to have to occur at someone else’s expense. There is still little political will in the PANYNJ to remove the perimeter rule.


Yes because they can’t show favoritism. If they allow LAS just so SWA can fly it then they have set precedence and Airlines A, B, and C are going to be demanding that they be allowed to fly to X, Y, Z (all outside the perimeter) too.

DEN is only allowed because that was the only city outside the perimeter that actually had LGA flights at the time the perimeter rule was implemented, and any carrier is free to fly the route.

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

airlineworker wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

JFKalumni wrote:

deltairlines wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Those folks in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse would likely see some of their LGA service cut in favor of those Outside-Perimeter markets, and they'll raise hell with Cuomo over that. And even though it's a PANYNJ rule (and not federal like DCA), there would be a lot of politicians in the Northeast that wouldn't be too happy losing their link to LGA.

Truth be told, for West Coast, JFK isn't that bad. On a good day (rare), I can get from LGA to Penn Station in 20 minutes by cab, but it's often in the 40 minute range. I typically budget about 50 minutes to get from JFK to Penn Station (via Jamaica/LIRR). However, LGA sees a good bit of same-day/maybe one overnight business traffic, while West Coast traffic tends to be more than just a single night, which makes time a little less of a commodity.

JFK is not bad at all. Me personally I find it easier to travel to EWR than JFK or LGA. NJ Transit from Penn station to EWR or the Newark Express bus from the Port Authority bus terminal is 25 minutes.

I’m glad LGA has installed new bridges from the terminal to East Elmhurst but it’s only a matter of time before people start complaining about increased traffic on Ditmars Blvd.

My real wish is to have the new Airtrain travel down the Grand Central / Van Wyck to the Jamaica Airtrain station. Take some pressure off both airports by having a simple connection between the two.

I second your wish. I live on Long Island and I dread LGA because of the lack of rail access unlike JFK where I can literally go door to door via the Long Island Railroad and AirTrain (I live across the street from the Long Island Railroad). With LGA I have to park or use the bus which is not reliable at all. Maybe a later phase of AirTrain LGA expansion should include that, but I get that they're focused on rail access from the city right now as opposed to the suburbs, but JFK is always my preferred airport because it is cheaper in the grand scheme of things to use because I don't have to park my car or take Uber/Lyft.

JFKalumni wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

tphuang wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

LGA has too many RJ flights between itself and small cities around the country that may not come back. Also, do you really need hourly service between LGA-DCA and LGA-BOS, especially considering the new revamped Acela train service coming online soon?

Eliminate the excess overlap in certain markets and utilize those slots for other areas.

Here’s a money maker:

Eliminate the perimeter rule and start LGA-SJU/BQN. B6 would make an absolute killing on that route.

JFKalumni wrote:

tphuang wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

LGA has too many RJ flights between itself and small cities around the country that may not come back. Also, do you really need hourly service between LGA-DCA and LGA-BOS, especially considering the new revamped Acela train service coming online soon?

Eliminate the excess overlap in certain markets and utilize those slots for other areas.

Here’s a money maker:

Eliminate the perimeter rule and start LGA-SJU/BQN. B6 would make an absolute killing on that route.

B6 doesn't have enough slots to waste them on LGA-SJU/BQN. It's a terrible idea.

We have LGA slots being used this way because the markets demand it that way and because the existing slot holders value their slots. Their is no evidence LGA right now sees higher % of RJ than other major markets around the country.

Removing perimeter rule basically just help DL and hurt JetBlue. It's terrible for traffic around LGA. Maybe you think it's a good thing to destroy New York's hometown airline with such a move. But I doubt the politicians will think the same way.

tphuang wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

How would removing the perimeter rule make LGA more crowded? Airlines have a fixed number of slots to utilize. A 737 is the same size no matter what route it is on. If a 737 operating LGA-MCI gets moved to LGA-LAX, it's still the same amount of passengers in the terminal.

TTailedTiger wrote:

tphuang wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Exactly.

Add LAX/SFO/SJU/BQN/LAS/SEA/YVR/YYC

Routes that are sure to make money in the NYC area

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

How would removing the perimeter rule make LGA more crowded? Airlines have a fixed number of slots to utilize. A 737 is the same size no matter what route it is on. If a 737 operating LGA-MCI gets moved to LGA-LAX, it's still the same amount of passengers in the terminal.

The 737/A320s will be replacing RJs that now operate to smaller markets. JFK will just become a lot more idle.

tphuang wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

tphuang wrote:

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

How would removing the perimeter rule make LGA more crowded? Airlines have a fixed number of slots to utilize. A 737 is the same size no matter what route it is on. If a 737 operating LGA-MCI gets moved to LGA-LAX, it's still the same amount of passengers in the terminal.

The 737/A320s will be replacing RJs that now operate to smaller markets. JFK will just become a lot more idle.

There was a time before regional jets when LGA was all mainline and it managed just fine. JFK is still needed for international flights and hub airlines will still need domestic flights to feed them. JFK would be just fine if LGA is set free.

tphuang wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

tphuang wrote:

This keeps getting brought up, but I don't know why people are so obsessed with removing perimeter rules at LGA? We have a s good setup right now where the inner and preferred airport don't take up all the business traffic. Removing perimeter rule would just crowd LGA more and empty out JFK?. Why would you want that? If anything, it'd be better to get rid of LGA and consolidate all traffic at EWR and JFK. Then people would actually be able to easily take airtrain + subway to get to the airport instead of having to take uber everytime.

If you don't like how slots are getting used at LGA. Make some rules on minimum aircraft size.

LGA has too many RJ flights between itself and small cities around the country that may not come back. Also, do you really need hourly service between LGA-DCA and LGA-BOS, especially considering the new revamped Acela train service coming online soon?

Eliminate the excess overlap in certain markets and utilize those slots for other areas.

Here’s a money maker:

Eliminate the perimeter rule and start LGA-SJU/BQN. B6 would make an absolute killing on that route.

B6 doesn't have enough slots to waste them on LGA-SJU/BQN. It's a terrible idea.

We have LGA slots being used this way because the markets demand it that way and because the existing slot holders value their slots. Their is no evidence LGA right now sees higher % of RJ than other major markets around the country.

Removing perimeter rule basically just help DL and hurt JetBlue. It's terrible for traffic around LGA. Maybe you think it's a good thing to destroy New York's hometown airline with such a move. But I doubt the politicians will think the same way.

It’s funny I worked for a short period of time at LGA and most of the traffic was RJ’s. Envoy, PSA, Expressjet, Mesa,Gojet, Endeavor, Jazz, etc

The same small markets are already being served at JFK. Most RJ missions are to provide connection service. Remember LGA is already slot restricted. You are going to get the same crowds regardless of the origin and destination point.

Does anyone know if they are going to add ferry access to LGA? With the NYC ferry already heading up to Astoria and heading as far as Far rockaway, I don't see why they couldn't build a ferry stop and allow people to connect. They did have it in some renderings I believe.

TTailedTiger wrote:

tphuang wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

How would removing the perimeter rule make LGA more crowded? Airlines have a fixed number of slots to utilize. A 737 is the same size no matter what route it is on. If a 737 operating LGA-MCI gets moved to LGA-LAX, it's still the same amount of passengers in the terminal.

The 737/A320s will be replacing RJs that now operate to smaller markets. JFK will just become a lot more idle.

There was a time before regional jets when LGA was all mainline and it managed just fine. JFK is still needed for international flights and hub airlines will still need domestic flights to feed them. JFK would be just fine if LGA is set free.

During that time, the mainline aircraft also wasn’t mostly in the 150 to 200 seat range.

Jfk will lose all these premium transcon flights. It’s already going to be More empty due to covid. It will not just be fine for a while.

I am not seeing any benefits from losing perimeter restrictions.

airlineworker wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Exactly, and on point. The future of LGA is intact and it will continue to operate as a key preferred choice for business travelers who need to reach Manhattan as quickly as possible. The new terminals improve the passenger experience dramatically, but it does not change the fact that the land LGA sits on is small, with no room to grow, and the airport remains in the middle of one of the most congested airways in the country (once traffic resumes that is). Perimeter rule issues are not going to go away any time soon, in that you may see more weekend services and potentially down the road, one or two regular services but not much more. The runways are short and space is at a premium. Every inch LGA sits on matters.

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

There isn't much traffic in the Northeast even going to LGA now. A lot of it went away when Delta took over from US Airways. Those props going around the Northeast were quickly turned into 76-seat RJs going to STL, MCI, DFW, IAH, MKE and more. The only real destinations in the Northeast now with flights to LGA are PHL (to feed from the rest of AA's network in PHL), PWM (which is a bear of a drive and is a popular destination both ways), BGR (seasonal, with this being the gateway to Acadia), BOS, BUF, BTV, ROC, SYR, DCA. As I said, BUF/ROC/SYR aren't going anywhere for political reasons. BOS and DCA have some demand. Even with the new Acela, I'd still fly to BOS (and I'm coming from Hell's Kitchen). The train from New York to Boston will still have secondary status up to New Haven (since Metro North owns those tracks), then grade crossings and bridges through Connecticut mean it can't chop off a lot of time there. DCA is a different story, but that was already getting cut back - Delta hasn't flown it hourly in a long time. Not to mention that LGA is a DL hub and DCA is an American hub so there is through connectivity now on both sides. That really only leaves BTV - which can also get political since it's really the easiest way for those in North Country to get to NYC, especially when the ferry is running across Lake Champlain.

Next is aircraft utilization. Are we 100% sure that an A321 can make it cross-country Westbound on a 7000 ft runway year round? Add in some 90+ degree days (like right now), or add some rain, or add some snow and that's a big ask. Just because AA and B6 have the transcon 321s, it doesn't mean they are necessarily lighter - those business/first class seats weigh a lot more than your normal set of domestic First Class seats. As for Delta, they were running 767s to LAX/SFO. I doubt they will have any 767-capable gates in their remodeled terminal, so that means 757s, which if/when things come back, there are only so many of those between LAX-BOS/DCA as well as any trans-Atlantic flying they might use them on.

Insertnamehere wrote:

Does anyone know if they are going to add ferry access to LGA? With the NYC ferry already heading up to Astoria and heading as far as Far rockaway, I don't see why they couldn't build a ferry stop and allow people to connect. They did have it in some renderings I believe.

Ferry access has been tried many times. The dock is over by the Marine Air Terminal. If you are going out of the Main complex, it's then a not-so-great bus ride over there. I'm not sure what the road situation is now with the new headhouse opening, but there was plenty of construction going on when I was there less than two weeks ago. At that point, unless you're on B6, the ferry isn't worth the hassle.

https://youtu.be/Kil-slXgVys

Interview with the architect to see how he designs the terminal

To be honest, I really do not see why there needs to be so many flights from JFK to BOS. LGA should handle those. I think the NYC-BOS route in general needs to be toned down. That could free some slots in LGA.

What do you guys think about the future of B6, NK, or F9 at LGA?

Does the Marine Air Terminal even have a baggage handling system? If so are there any pictures?

deltairlines wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

It may be possible to relax the perimeter rule in the future especially considering Cuomo’s ambitious nature to improve LGA by all means. LGA is a businessman’s airport with no direct service to the west coast. With today’s A220’s and A321’s, the west coast is reachable even with LGA’s 7,000ft runways.

Only problem I see is smaller markets will lose access to LGA in favor of larger hubs via slot allocation.

Makes sense, access to LGA is not a right and all other small cities can make a one stop connection to LGA. I remember years back US had a lot of Dash-8-100's using up valuable slots for a handful of passengers, not a wise use of limited resources. Small cities in the Northeast can connect through PHL to LGA. The slots LGA has is all its ever going to have, so let the slots be used for moving the greater number of people.

There isn't much traffic in the Northeast even going to LGA now. A lot of it went away when Delta took over from US Airways. Those props going around the Northeast were quickly turned into 76-seat RJs going to STL, MCI, DFW, IAH, MKE and more. The only real destinations in the Northeast now with flights to LGA are PHL (to feed from the rest of AA's network in PHL), PWM (which is a bear of a drive and is a popular destination both ways), BGR (seasonal, with this being the gateway to Acadia), BOS, BUF, BTV, ROC, SYR, DCA. As I said, BUF/ROC/SYR aren't going anywhere for political reasons. BOS and DCA have some demand. Even with the new Acela, I'd still fly to BOS (and I'm coming from Hell's Kitchen). The train from New York to Boston will still have secondary status up to New Haven (since Metro North owns those tracks), then grade crossings and bridges through Connecticut mean it can't chop off a lot of time there. DCA is a different story, but that was already getting cut back - Delta hasn't flown it hourly in a long time. Not to mention that LGA is a DL hub and DCA is an American hub so there is through connectivity now on both sides. That really only leaves BTV - which can also get political since it's really the easiest way for those in North Country to get to NYC, especially when the ferry is running across Lake Champlain.

Next is aircraft utilization. Are we 100% sure that an A321 can make it cross-country Westbound on a 7000 ft runway year round? Add in some 90+ degree days (like right now), or add some rain, or add some snow and that's a big ask. Just because AA and B6 have the transcon 321s, it doesn't mean they are necessarily lighter - those business/first class seats weigh a lot more than your normal set of domestic First Class seats. As for Delta, they were running 767s to LAX/SFO. I doubt they will have any 767-capable gates in their remodeled terminal, so that means 757s, which if/when things come back, there are only so many of those between LAX-BOS/DCA as well as any trans-Atlantic flying they might use them on.

I brought up BOS and DCA because there was a time when we had hourly shuttle service between LGA and those cities. It’s funny you should mention Hell’s Kitchen because for one I graduated from Graphic Arts and two that area has not only service via the Acela but also the Peter Pan buses cover both destinations. It feels like there’s a tremendous amount of seats via ground, air, and rail.

Take one of those slots and allocate it to a different market. As for the flight profile, the A321’s should be able to cover the distance and runway conditions. I would worry about irrops ground delays and crew duty times at LGA.

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

Well we know how well ACY attracted those tourist...

xdlx wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

WN: I could see them trying to get more destinations and/or slots. A bigger LGA means bigger opportunities. I think an LGA-LAS flight could be a game changer for tourists.

There is an obvious reason there are no flights LGA-LAS, unless it is on a Saturday it is too far for LGA flights.

If weekday LGA-LAS flights were possible that would be a game changer. It would mean the perimeter rule is no longer in existence.


Captain Obvious.

Well we know how well ACY attracted those tourist...

I think ACY compares more with RNO than LAS.....

I’d like to see loosening of the perimeter rule. If JFK takes the hit, so be it, let folks decide what airport they want to fly into. You can’t prop JFK up and jam LGA full of RJs.

TonyClifton wrote:

I’d like to see loosening of the perimeter rule. If JFK takes the hit, so be it, let folks decide what airport they want to fly into. You can’t prop JFK up and jam LGA full of RJs.

I'm honestly a little surprised there haven't been rumblings about introducing a few beyond-perimeter exemptions for LGA like what was done at DCA several years back, where the then-US4 were allowed to drop service to a "large" within-perimeter airport and use that slot pair to serve a beyond-perimeter one. Instituting something similar at LGA would allow small markets to keep their service while opening up non-stops to new markets.

My only time where I feel compelled to use LGA over JFK is when LGA has mainline on a route that JFK has an RJ. ORD is a prime example where LGA-ORD is mainline (at lesat for now) and JFK-ORD is all RJs. Another one is traveling through DTW where JFK is all RJ again (COVID killed the mainline frequencies) and LGA is all mainline. Other than that I make every effort to fly out of JFK over LGA because it's just easier for me in terms of location and access.

Disclaimer: I exclusively fly Delta so my post is referring to their operations.

Sightseer wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

I’d like to see loosening of the perimeter rule. If JFK takes the hit, so be it, let folks decide what airport they want to fly into. You can’t prop JFK up and jam LGA full of RJs.

I'm honestly a little surprised there haven't been rumblings about introducing a few beyond-perimeter exemptions for LGA like what was done at DCA several years back, where the then-US4 were allowed to drop service to a "large" within-perimeter airport and use that slot pair to serve a beyond-perimeter one. Instituting something similar at LGA would allow small markets to keep their service while opening up non-stops to new markets.

There should absolutely be some. Especially with expanded gate space, you can handle larger passenger numbers in the terminals soon. Also they need to adjust the current slots. There are many that are 50 seat and under only. Allow those to be larger aircraft and make more efficient use of what there is. Even offer a conversion of something like 3 current slots to 2 beyond perimeter ones. Reduces airport congestion, and lets airlines put them to the best use, rather than jam ERJ-140s and CRJ-200s just because they have to.