Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TonyClifton wrote:Proposed solution to LGA. Allow slots to be converted to beyond perimeter at a ratio. Hand in say 10 slots, get 7 beyond perimeter back. Takes a few planes out of the skies.
STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:Proposed solution to LGA. Allow slots to be converted to beyond perimeter at a ratio. Hand in say 10 slots, get 7 beyond perimeter back. Takes a few planes out of the skies.
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
FlyingElvii wrote:Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
LAXintl wrote:
In my opinion, airlines will welcome this and will return slots and trim their schedules during the period.
There are too many examples of non-economic flying for sake of slot squatting. The crew and aircraft resources can be used elsewhere for better returns.
TonyClifton wrote:STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:Proposed solution to LGA. Allow slots to be converted to beyond perimeter at a ratio. Hand in say 10 slots, get 7 beyond perimeter back. Takes a few planes out of the skies.
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
EWR22LAS25 wrote:That's scheduled to happen the same day that the state is renamed New Amsterdam.TonyClifton wrote:STT757 wrote:
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
TonyClifton wrote:Anyways, curious what would be cut out of the slots.
SteelChair wrote:Having said all that, the airlines would probably welcome less competition. Taking seats out of the market will drive up prices. How does the government reconcile that conflict?
jetblastdubai wrote:TonyClifton wrote:Anyways, curious what would be cut out of the slots.
Right off the top of my head, UA's 18 daily, 50-seater, flights between slotted DCA and delay-leader EWR.
As long as the FAA proposal is voluntary, the airline(s) that comply will lose out to the ones that choose not to.
SteelChair wrote:Finally. It only took, what 30 or 40 years?
This probably won't get much play here or in the main stream news, but this is actually huge. This is the United States Government finally admitting that they cannot meet their longstanding commitments. So much for progress, we haven't even approached the traffic levels of 1999-2000 and 2006-2007. Why can't the ATC system handle the same volume of traffic as they did in the previous peaks? Why the regression?
If the government were a private company who welched on their promises (contracts?), the government would be forced to pay restitution. Being that this is the government, and they're all powerful, that won't even be considered. Those slots have value, and were acquired at great cost over a long period of time by the institutions who own them. The slot owners shouldn't just surrender assets that they own.
SteelChair wrote:Finally. It only took, what 30 or 40 years?
This probably won't get much play here or in the main stream news, but this is actually huge. This is the United States Government finally admitting that they cannot meet their longstanding commitments. So much for progress, we haven't even approached the traffic levels of 1999-2000 and 2006-2007. Why can't the ATC system handle the same volume of traffic as they did in the previous peaks? Why the regression?
CriticalPoint wrote:Yeah United isn’t going to give up anything in EWR….the FAA burned them bad during the construction by letting JetBlue to bulk up with no limit.
EWR is a mess right now because of that.
stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
Boof02671 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:Yeah United isn’t going to give up anything in EWR….the FAA burned them bad during the construction by letting JetBlue to bulk up with no limit.
EWR is a mess right now because of that.
EWR hasn’t been slot controlled for years.
ty97 wrote:The FAA apparently specifically mentioned DCA re: the NYC air traffic issue, where we all know there are a plethora of regional jets from NYC. Of course DCA is slot controlled too, so the FAA will allow anyone who temporarily drops, say, an LGA-DCA flight to retain the slot on both ends. Smart, actually.
Looks like DL/UA have indicated they are receptive to the slot waiver concept (no mention regarding which slots/routes would be impacted). AA is mulling it over.
https://paxex.aero/faa-staffing-nyc-slot-relief/
Boof02671 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:Yeah United isn’t going to give up anything in EWR….the FAA burned them bad during the construction by letting JetBlue to bulk up with no limit.
EWR is a mess right now because of that.
EWR hasn’t been slot controlled for years.
jetblastdubai wrote:
As long as the FAA proposal is voluntary, the airline(s) that comply will lose out to the ones that choose not to.
ddaly241 wrote:Has there been a proposal for a new redesign of the NYC airspace? There would have to be one soon if airspace is a problem for the NYC airports and DCA. Larger aircraft for now will solve the issue, but long term won’t, because aircraft movements is just going to keep increasing.
stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
chonetsao wrote:How do you define 'commercially needless' service though?If airline argues it is essential service to a community, or it is vital for connection...etc., How FAA enforce which flight to cut if it has to?
evank516 wrote:stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
IADCA wrote:Did people miss the words "temporary" and "voluntary" or not read the link? The surrender of slots is from May to September 15 of this year. After that, it all goes back to what it was before. Nobody's losing anything permanent.FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
They get the slots back in September. There's not any long-term harm here if they can't find a place to use them profitably over the summer.chonetsao wrote:How do you define 'commercially needless' service though?If airline argues it is essential service to a community, or it is vital for connection...etc., How FAA enforce which flight to cut if it has to?
It's VOLUNTARY. Nobody is being forced to give up slots if they don't want to.
These dudes get it:evank516 wrote:stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
There's a real chance for carriers to mitigate some regional staffing woes here. It wouldn't be a huge number of flights, but at DCA in particular there are slots that are RJ-only. If you can return those this summer for flights that are largely squatting or fleet rotation and then get them back in the fall, it's a potential benefit to get planes and crews elsewhere.
evank516 wrote:IADCA wrote:Did people miss the words "temporary" and "voluntary" or not read the link? The surrender of slots is from May to September 15 of this year. After that, it all goes back to what it was before. Nobody's losing anything permanent.FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
They get the slots back in September. There's not any long-term harm here if they can't find a place to use them profitably over the summer.chonetsao wrote:How do you define 'commercially needless' service though?If airline argues it is essential service to a community, or it is vital for connection...etc., How FAA enforce which flight to cut if it has to?
It's VOLUNTARY. Nobody is being forced to give up slots if they don't want to.
These dudes get it:evank516 wrote:
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
There's a real chance for carriers to mitigate some regional staffing woes here. It wouldn't be a huge number of flights, but at DCA in particular there are slots that are RJ-only. If you can return those this summer for flights that are largely squatting or fleet rotation and then get them back in the fall, it's a potential benefit to get planes and crews elsewhere.
Agreed. Staffing at regionals is not in the best shape. It's best to use the resources they do have at the regionals to sustain markets that can't support even small mainline aircraft. In the high frequency RJ markets to mid-sized cities, cut the frequencies in half and upgauge the equipment.
I read an article (sorry I lost the link) that stated UA and DL have already agreed to participate.
SteelChair wrote:The US government is talking about holding up, or disapproving, the teeny (compared to the big 4 airlines mergers of 10-15 years ago) JetBlue/Spirit merger because they claim (ridiculously imho) that it is anti-competitive. Yet, at the same time the government is restricting capacity because they can no longer manage air traffic efficiently.
FlyingElvii wrote:evank516 wrote:IADCA wrote:Did people miss the words "temporary" and "voluntary" or not read the link? The surrender of slots is from May to September 15 of this year. After that, it all goes back to what it was before. Nobody's losing anything permanent.
They get the slots back in September. There's not any long-term harm here if they can't find a place to use them profitably over the summer.
It's VOLUNTARY. Nobody is being forced to give up slots if they don't want to.
These dudes get it:
There's a real chance for carriers to mitigate some regional staffing woes here. It wouldn't be a huge number of flights, but at DCA in particular there are slots that are RJ-only. If you can return those this summer for flights that are largely squatting or fleet rotation and then get them back in the fall, it's a potential benefit to get planes and crews elsewhere.
Agreed. Staffing at regionals is not in the best shape. It's best to use the resources they do have at the regionals to sustain markets that can't support even small mainline aircraft. In the high frequency RJ markets to mid-sized cities, cut the frequencies in half and upgauge the equipment.
I read an article (sorry I lost the link) that stated UA and DL have already agreed to participate.
While AA is waiting to see if they actually follow through, so that they can sell more seats, it seems….
evank516 wrote:stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
Boof02671 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:Yeah United isn’t going to give up anything in EWR….the FAA burned them bad during the construction by letting JetBlue to bulk up with no limit.
EWR is a mess right now because of that.
EWR hasn’t been slot controlled for years.
TonyClifton wrote:STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:Proposed solution to LGA. Allow slots to be converted to beyond perimeter at a ratio. Hand in say 10 slots, get 7 beyond perimeter back. Takes a few planes out of the skies.
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
Midwestindy wrote:evank516 wrote:stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
How exactly is that a positive change? Not trying to be sarcastic.
I'd take 5 daily E175s over 2-3 daily A319s any day, especially on a business route.
Plus the E175s have the same or slightly more F/Y+ seating.
STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:STT757 wrote:
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
I'm all for the Port Authority coming up with some kind of allowance for a limited number of outside perimeter flights.
UA LGA-SFO, DL LGA-SLC, AA LGA-PHX, NK LGA-LAS etc.
TonyClifton wrote:EWR22LAS25 wrote:That's scheduled to happen the same day that the state is renamed New Amsterdam.TonyClifton wrote:I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
A man can dream. Imagine three airports actually having to compete for passengers in NYC, rather than a cartel that only made a change due to airlines investing their own money in it.
Anyways, curious what would be cut out of the slots.
Midwestindy wrote:evank516 wrote:stl07 wrote:I see some of the Midwest routes getting some positive changes due to this. Instead of running shuttle like service on RJs, some of the airlines might just consolidate onto a few flights a day on an a319/737
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
How exactly is that a positive change? Not trying to be sarcastic.
I'd take 5 daily E175s over 2-3 daily A319s any day, especially on a business route.
Plus the E175s have the same or slightly more F/Y+ seating.
FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
evank516 wrote:Midwestindy wrote:evank516 wrote:
I agree with this. I could see some upgauges to the likes of IND, MKE, MCI, BNA, and STL happening for the summer.
I expect we will see some interesting schedule changes in the next two weeks as a result.
How exactly is that a positive change? Not trying to be sarcastic.
I'd take 5 daily E175s over 2-3 daily A319s any day, especially on a business route.
Plus the E175s have the same or slightly more F/Y+ seating.
Business travel is down, and it's going to stay down for a while. Frequencies aren't necessary. The slots can be better utilized in unserved markets that don't have service because of slot restrictions, or they can be temporarily surrendered for the summer.
Personally, I'd take 2 daily A220s over 5 E175s. Especially on routes over 1,000 miles.
BB78710 wrote:FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
I think most if not all the airlines will go for this.
Imagine how many flights would be removed from the NYC area alone if AA, DL, UA and B6 eliminated every flight that is only operating because they are slot squatting? Let's start there get rid of every flight that only exist to slot squat. Those flights serve no competitive purpose at all, they only exist because the airline wishes to hold on to their valuable slots. Now the FAA is saying for S23 you don't have to worry about the use it or loose rule because we will return those slots to you at the end of the summer travel season.
STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:STT757 wrote:
The problem is the jurisdictions, the perimeter rule is a local Port Authority policy to protect Kennedy airport. Slots are an FAA deal. The FAA doesn't care who flies where, they only care about how many planes operate there during certain times.
I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
I'm all for the Port Authority coming up with some kind of allowance for a limited number of outside perimeter flights.
UA LGA-SFO, DL LGA-SLC, AA LGA-PHX, NK LGA-LAS etc.
tinpusher007 wrote:STT757 wrote:TonyClifton wrote:I get it, just would be a nice solution.
Port Authority should be broken up like BAA was for London airports, but that’s a different story all together.
I'm all for the Port Authority coming up with some kind of allowance for a limited number of outside perimeter flights.
UA LGA-SFO, DL LGA-SLC, AA LGA-PHX, NK LGA-LAS etc.
Why limit it? They should open it all up. The perimeter rule is way past its prime. JFK doesnt need to be protected anymore and there are aircraft more than capable of flying nonstop to the west coast off LGA's 7000ft runways. In 2023, the perimeter rule needs to go away.
FlyingElvii wrote:Sounds as if the FAA is already expecting issues for summer in the Northeast.
Now honestly, who is willingly going to give up LGA slots putting themselves at a future competitive disadvantage?
Midwestindy wrote:evank516 wrote:Midwestindy wrote:
How exactly is that a positive change? Not trying to be sarcastic.
I'd take 5 daily E175s over 2-3 daily A319s any day, especially on a business route.
Plus the E175s have the same or slightly more F/Y+ seating.
Business travel is down, and it's going to stay down for a while. Frequencies aren't necessary. The slots can be better utilized in unserved markets that don't have service because of slot restrictions, or they can be temporarily surrendered for the summer.
Personally, I'd take 2 daily A220s over 5 E175s. Especially on routes over 1,000 miles.
Eh....business travel is at 80% of 2019 (with the middle of the country higher than that).
Regardless, 90% of leisure travelers don't know the difference between the E175 & A220, and assuming prices are the same, I'd guarantee you all of that 90% would rather have 5 flight options than 2 flight options when planning their trip.
If I'm planning a weekend trip with the family and my only Friday options are 8am & 2pm, that is a huge difference than having 7am, 10am, 1pm, 3pm, & 5pm options (even if solely for re-accommodation purposes)