Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
BooDog
Topic Author
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:44 am

Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:44 am

the link: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071217/20071217005385.html?.v=1

Air Travelers Association Pleads to President Bush and Transportation Secretary Peters - ''Please Don't Raise Airfares and Cut Flights to and from the New York/Newark Area''

Monday December 17, 6:00 am ET

Administration Proposals to Cap Flights at JFK and Newark and to Auction Slots is a Bad Idea Whose Time Has Not Come

Air Travelers Association Calls on President Bush and the Congress to Convene an Aviation Industry Summit to Agree on the Funding for the NextGen Air Traffic Control System and Appoint Kenneth Feinberg to Mediate the Dispute at the Summit


POTOMAC, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--David Stempler, President of the Air Travelers Association, the airline passenger/consumer representative on the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee to reduce aviation congestion and delay in the New York metropolitan area, pleaded today, in advance of statements by the Bush Administration, "Please Mr. President and Secretary Peters, don't raise airfares and cuts flights to and from the New York/Newark metropolitan area by capping flights at JFK and Newark Airports. Many laws are made and repealed in Washington, but it is the "law of supply and demand" that cannot be repealed by any Administration. By limiting the supply of flights at JFK/Newark, with the demand remaining the same, fares in the entire New York/Newark metropolitan area will shoot up. That's not the result that passengers wanted in exchange for lowered delay flights.

According to Stempler, Aviation congestion in the New York/Newark metropolitan area is a delicate balance between low fares, flight time, airport choices, and delay. Proposals to limit or cap airport operations called "slots", slot auctions, and even the now discarded congestion pricing idea for airports, only will have bad results for passengers ─ higher fares and fewer flights. Airline passengers are not interested in reduced flight delays at the cost of significantly higher airfares and significantly fewer flights."Stempler continued, "New Yorkers, remember those $69 fares to Ft. Lauderdale? Well you can forget about it! They are going to go up to $169, $269, $369, or higher. Who knows? But that high fare flight is going to be on time. What a deal!

David Stempler continued, "The Bush Administration has taken a bad idea and made it worse with slot auctions. Everybody on the Committee was generally in agreement that a slot auction for new slots was an acceptable idea. But taking away slots from airlines that have invested billions of dollars in facilities at New York/Newark airports and planes to service them, seem to us patently unfair. It reminds me of Hugo Chavez's nationalizing of oil companies in Venezuela. Most Americans find that offensive. Is nationalizing airline slots what we've come to in this country because someone spent 30 minutes extra waiting to take off? I say no!" Stempler concluded, "Fair is fair, and this is not fair!"

Stempler continued, "These caps on flights at JFK and Newark are just a Band-Aid on a festering disease. Delays are just one symptom of the disease, but near collisions on the air and on the ground are another. The real, long-term solutions to these safety and efficiency problems is to put into service a new, safety-based, GPS, next generation air traffic control system (NextGen), as soon as possible. Airline safety, savings, and service depend on it.

David Stempler concluded, "The Air Travelers Association calls upon the following U.S. Government officials to convene an aviation summit of all of the interested aviation parties. the legacy airlines, low fare carriers, regional airlines, airline passengers, airports, corporate jet and private aviation operators to find a solution to the current funding stalemate, that would start the implementation of NextGen immediately.

President George W. Bush;

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters;

Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV, Chairman of the Senate Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee;

Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, House and Urban Development, and Related Agencies;

Congressman Jerry F. Costello, Chairman of House Subcommittee on Aviation; and

John W. Olver, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Transportation, House and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

The Air Travelers Association suggests that Kenneth Feinberg be appointed by the Government to be the mediator of such a summit. Mr. Feinberg was selected by Attorney General John Ashcroft to administer the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, established by the Congress shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. He has also handled other complex legal disputes over the past 30 years, including Agent Orange, asbestos, and the closing of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. According to Stempler, “There is no finer, world-class mediator than Kenneth Feinberg, and the aviation industry would be fortunate to have him for the aviation industry summit”.

The Air Travelers Association (http://AirTravelersAssociation.com), founded in 1997, advocates for airline passengers on airline safety, security, savings, and service. David Stempler, President of the Air Travelers Association, is an internationally known authority on airline passenger and air travel issues. He was the airline passenger/consumer representative on the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee to reduce aviation congestion and delay in the New York metropolitan area



Contact:
Air Travelers Association
President
David S. Stempler, 301-469-8110
Cell: 301-980-8888
[email protected]
http://AirTravelersAssociation.com
B1B - best looking aircraft ever.
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:26 am

I'll pay more to get there ontime! shoot, try PHL, SWF or HPN expansion.. bottom line 1 of my last 15 flights (yes time of day influences that number) has been on time, message me if you want the list... personally I've lost money by sitting needlessly at the airport... I agree that the Nextgen system is important, but it's still a few years off and until them I think the caps are necessary to atleast bring some predictability to my travels...
1.4mm and counting...
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:32 am



Quoting BooDog (Thread starter):
Airline passengers are not interested in reduced flight delays at the cost of significantly higher airfares and significantly fewer flights."Stempler continued, "New Yorkers, remember those $69 fares to Ft. Lauderdale? Well you can forget about it! They are going to go up to $169, $269, $369, or higher. Who knows? But that high fare flight is going to be on time. What a deal!

That's fair. I'm a budget-oriented traveller, and I'm of the mindset that a cheap flight that's delayed an hour or two is better than an on time flight that I can't afford at all.

But if that's the approach that's taken, then I don't want to hear any whining about overcrowding from the ATA either.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:54 am



Quoting BooDog (Thread starter):
Airline passengers are not interested in reduced flight delays at the cost of significantly higher airfares and significantly fewer flights."

I think he's making a stupid statement with that comment. There is a lot of lost productivity from all the delays at those airports.

Let passengers choose. They can pay more for convenient airports like EWR, LGA and JFK. However if they are very budget orientated and are willing to waste time travelling, then let them go to HPN or other airports. They can get cheaper fares and spend more time getting to the airport rather than having a lot of time be wasted at the airport. If fares spike at EWR and JFK, well then there will finally be motivation for people to go use the smaller airports that are farther from the city.

New Yorkers live in a big city and slots are very useful and important to keep airports flowing. If we look at Europeans, they can choose a more expensive slot controlled airport, or can drive further to find a cheap discount airport. That method works.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:56 am

The aviation community pleads...

Please NIMBYS, let us build more runways and airports to ease congestion so you can keep your dirt cheap airfares.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:16 am



Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 1):
I'll pay more to get there ontime!

When you are talking about arriving on time, are you talking about a day when the sky is clear with 10 miles visibility or are you talking about a blizzard with 3 feet of snow and 1/2 mile visibility?

I haven't seen any news reports that begin "today it was bright and clear at JFK and many flights were canceled and delayed for hours". If you want on time performance during terrible weather, then you will end up with an underutilized airport much of the rest of the year. If you only want on time performance during good weather, you will still end up with delays during winter snowstorms and summer thunderstorms.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
let them go to HPN or other airports

I think the people who speak about using HPN as an alternative have never been there. HPN has only one commercial length runway of 7000' along with a small terminal and apron area. It is not really equipped to be an alternate to JFK or EWR in the same way that ONT could be an alternate to LAX.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:27 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 5):
I think the people who speak about using HPN as an alternative have never been there. HPN has only one commercial length runway of 7000' along with a small terminal and apron area.

Not to mention that it is very restricted in capacity due to all the mega-rich NIMBYs.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 5):
It is not really equipped to be an alternate to JFK or EWR in the same way that ONT could be an alternate to LAX.

 checkmark 

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:38 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 5):
When you are talking about arriving on time, are you talking about a day when the sky is clear with 10 miles visibility or are you talking about a blizzard with 3 feet of snow and 1/2 mile visibility?

I haven't seen any news reports that begin "today it was bright and clear at JFK and many flights were canceled and delayed for hours". If you want on time performance during terrible weather, then you will end up with an underutilized airport much of the rest of the year. If you only want on time performance during good weather, you will still end up with delays during winter snowstorms and summer thunderstorms.

either or... I've been out on days in storms, I've flown on clear days... flights delayed on either or... granted the delay is less on the clear days (typically), but we still arrive late... now I did preface my comment by saying that time of day counts.. typically I fly at prime time due to work demands, (4pm -7pm window) or in the evening which adds to it, but never the less, that's what the caps are really targeted at.. 45 min to 60 min taxi times should not be the norm on clear days (even with wind) out of a airport LGA's size. Yes, with caps there would be days the airport would be underutilized, however why should you schedule for 10% of your year, when 90% of the time the volume is unobtainable.. any one airline is helpless to do anything, (if one carrier reduces it's schedule other's simply fill in...), intervention is needed...
1.4mm and counting...
 
AlitaliaMD11
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:19 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:45 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 5):
I think the people who speak about using HPN as an alternative have never been there.

That's why SWF was purchased as the 4th Port Authority airport. There is lots of room for expansion up here.
No Vueling No Party
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:45 am



Quoting BooDog (Thread starter):
Airline passengers are not interested in reduced flight delays at the cost of significantly higher airfares and significantly fewer flights

Depends on who you ask. If you ask Joe-family who flies once a year on their $99 one-way fare to Florida to visit Grandma, then they probably don't care if they're delayed an hour or two or more as long as it means continuing to get that $99 one way fare. If you ask Mr. Business man who pays full-fare tickets and flies once a week all across the country, then he would probably say that "time is money, and these delays are costing me more than the increased ticket fares would cost me." And then I'll ask you who's more valuable to the airline and therfore, whose opinion should weigh a little more.

My dad's company does sales-training and one of the biggest points they make is on time delivery and good customer service will allow you to charge a premium for your product. People WILL pay more for reliability and dependibility.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:59 am



Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 7):
either or... I've been out on days in storms, I've flown on clear days... flights delayed on either or... granted the delay is less on the clear days (typically), but we still arrive late... now I did preface my comment by saying that time of day counts.. typically I fly at prime time due to work demands, (4pm -7pm window) or in the evening which adds to it, but never the less, that's what the caps are really targeted at.. 45 min to 60 min taxi times should not be the norm on clear days (even with wind) out of a airport LGA's size. Yes, with caps there would be days the airport would be underutilized, however why should you schedule for 10% of your year, when 90% of the time the volume is unobtainable.. any one airline is helpless to do anything, (if one carrier reduces it's schedule other's simply fill in...), intervention is needed...

It seems to me that if the airport is truly over-scheduled on clear, good visibility days, they some sort of cap should be in place. But what I see (and admittedly I live in California where blizzards are rare) is that whenever there is a heinous snowstorm and thousands are stranded, the whole FAA and aviation world talks about it. But these snowstorms don't happen that often and I can't tell from out here if JFK is really bad all the time or just a small portion of the year.

After all, during heinous snowstorms, it is no easier to drive between two points on the east coast than it is to fly. I remember once during an October ice storm in Chicago, it took me 2 1/2 hours to get from Michigan Avenue to O'Hare (17 miles). But when I got to the airport, the flights were mostly running on time. If a storm is so bad that it snarls up the expressways, it is not unreasonable that such a storm would also snarl up the airports.

On a side note, I will have a chance to experience JFK for myself on December 31 when I fly SAN-JFK-TXL and on January 9 when I return TXL-JFK-SAN with only a 1 1/2 hour connection, both flights on Delta! I will get to see the decrepit Delta terminal that everybody has been talking about at JFK and what things are like on a couple of different weather conditions.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:11 am



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
Depends on who you ask. If you ask Joe-family who flies once a year on their $99 one-way fare to Florida to visit Grandma, then they probably don't care if they're delayed an hour or two or more as long as it means continuing to get that $99 one way fare. If you ask Mr. Business man who pays full-fare tickets and flies once a week all across the country, then he would probably say that "time is money, and these delays are costing me more than the increased ticket fares would cost me." And then I'll ask you who's more valuable to the airline and therfore, whose opinion should weigh a little more.

Sounds great in theory. But Mr. Businessman also wants frequency, and frequency leads to congestion. That's the error in the original argument. It is the relatively price-inelastic consumers (business travelers) who create the congestion through their demand for smaller aircraft and more frequency. Joe-family doesn't care if he flies an M88 to FLL at 8:00, 4:00, or 7:00 or a 380 at 1:00. Carriers could give the leisure travelers exactly what they want with larger aircraft and less frequency, but that's not a profitable plan. Slots don't have to mean fares go up, because they don't have to mean the number of seats offered goes down.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:16 am

A peak hour slot system is the best compromise answer. Airlines can easily charge higher fares during those periods, and lower fares during the off peak flights, which would suit the budget minded traveler. After all, if the budget minded traveler would rather be delayed 2 hours than pay more, they lose the right to fly at a peak time, at least in my book. The business and international traveler, on the other hand, will pay more to get where they are going with reasonable reliability. And airlines will pay extra if they can be sure their international departures aren't too delayed, as it has a negative ripple effect throughout their system when delays occur.

Once the NextGen system is in place, maybe slots can be rethought and peak hour periods trimmed. But waiting 5 years to do anything isn't the answer.

But I also think EWR should be left alone. CO runs the place, they have brought service and lower fares to the region, and if they cared that much about delays, they would trim flights. But if the dominant carrier seems fine with the situation, and their customers seem fine with it, then why inject the government into it? This is the same with ATL, IAH, DTW, etc. In these situations, is it the government's place to say: "I think you should run your business differently and have fewer delays?" That's what they would be doing if they tried to control EWR, ATL, IAH, etc.

JFK is far worse, a far different situation, and far more airlines have a stake in the problems there. If AA cuts flights, it doesn't help, as others fill in the "gaps" ditto for DL or B6, so while on the surface it might seem a delayed airport is a delayed airport, in reality they are different. There needs to be some kind of "traffic cop" sorting through the mess, similar to what happened at ORD.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:18 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
This is the same with ATL, IAH, DTW, etc. In these situations, is it the government's place to say: "I think you should run your business differently and have fewer delays?" That's what they would be doing if they tried to control EWR, ATL, IAH, etc.

Isn't that exactly what the government did at ORD?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:46 am



Quoting BooDog (Thread starter):
Airline passengers are not interested in reduced flight delays at the cost of significantly higher airfares and significantly fewer flights."Stempler continued, "New Yorkers, remember those $69 fares to Ft. Lauderdale? Well you can forget about it! They are going to go up to $169, $269, $369, or higher. Who knows? But that high fare flight is going to be on time. What a deal!



Quoting BooDog (Thread starter):
Is nationalizing airline slots what we've come to in this country because someone spent 30 minutes extra waiting to take off? I say no!" Stempler concluded, "Fair is fair, and this is not fair!"

It's obvious to me that Mr. Stempler does not live in New York City.

For the record, THIS New Yorker would GLADLY pay a fare hike to not have to wait THREE EXTRA HOURS on the ground waiting to take off.

30 minutes? Is he on drugs??? 30 minutes would be a friggin' GODSEND.

First of all, capping flights would actually result in a cost REDUCTION to airlines. It would force them to use larger aircraft for dense routes (like JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX, JFK-ORD, etc.). Larger aircraft are inherently more fuel-efficient than smaller aircraft, and larger aircraft can carry more passengers than a smaller aircraft while using the same number of pilot (and pilots are 'spensive!).

Second, Mr. Stempler's contention that the law of supply-and-demand will sort out the problem is incorrect. The law of supply-and-demand got us into this mess in the first place because airlines are under the impression that what passengers want is more and more frequency. Passengers DO like flexibility in travel times. However, passengers want, first and foremost, AN ON-TIME FLIGHT.

Third, Mr. Stempler seems to think that a new ATC system is a panacea. It isn't. Aircraft are constantly landing and taking off at each NYC airport. Stand near one. An aircraft takes off or lands approximately every 1-2 minutes. You can't squeeze them any tighter without allowing planes to land while the plane in front of them is finishing its take-off roll. The ATC system has nothing to do with it.

I'll make the point I've made repeatedly in the past. For 1/30/2008, Travelocity.com shows 26 SEPARATE flights (I eliminated redundant code-shares) from New York City Area airports to SFO. The relevant airlines are UA, AA, DL, CO, and B6. USAir and Alaska offer flights as code-shares. The aircraft breakdown for this route is as follows (I have also included the stated pax load as per manufacturer for a 2-class configuration [since I wasn't about to go back and pick through each airline's seat maps]):

762: 3 (AA) (269x3=807 seats)
763: 2 (AA) (224x2=498 seats)
738: 8 (CO/DL) (162x8=1296 seats)
320: 3 (B6) (3x150=450 seats)
319: 2 (UA) (124x2=248 seats)
752: 8 (UA/DL) (8x200=1600 seats)

In total, there are an estimated 4,899 non-stop seats from NYC airports to SFO one-way on any given day. Yet, inexplicably, there are only 5 wide-bodies on that route.

8 A380's (assuming 600 pax in a 2-class domestic configuration) could do the same route, reducing the number of flights by almost 60% and not cutting capacity one iota. 9 or 10 748's could also be used (assuming 500-550 in a 2-class configuration). There are five airlines offering this route. Thus, there is plenty of room for each airline to operate at least one A380 or 748 and any other airline can code-share.

8-10 flights is more than enough choice for any one route.

So yeah. Flight caps are EXACTLY what are needed.

At this point, screw the free market. The free market made this mess. Some good, old-fashioned regulation is exactly what the doctor (OK, this doctor, anyway) ordered!

Oh, and on a side note, someone at UAL needs to be dragged out back and given a very thorough going-over for having the chutzpah to put 319's on that route.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:08 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
For the record, THIS New Yorker would GLADLY pay a fare hike to not have to wait THREE EXTRA HOURS on the ground waiting to take off.

And for the record, this New Yorker has NEVER spent three extra hours waiting to take off from JFK, except for one time that the jetway broke down and couldn't be moved back from the plane - not really a routine occurrance. The hour delays are frustrating, but I'll take them over spending an extra $50 on fares - I can put that to good use once I get where I'm going.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1127
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:39 am

I think they should auction the slots off, 10% per year, each slot is owned for 10 years. After 10 years (or 100 days of inactivity) the slots goes up for an eBay style auction.

This would allow the incumbents to slowly change the schedule/capacity. This would allow the city to get another slug of capital every 10 years rather than the incumbents to gain the entire windfall in slot prices. This would allow new entrants to spend money to get into an airport (see VA at NYC) and stop their whining about lack of slots. This would certainly cause some times of day to be more expensive than others.

This could happen.
---

If you really want to cut delays - sell the IFR slots and VFR slots seperately. On an IFR day then VFR traffic gets shuffled into the IFR traffic as allowed - if not available then VFR slots get cancelled.

If you don't limit slots to IFR levels, then on every IFR day you will have big delays - in some areas no big deal, in others (SFO) a huge impact.

This will never happpen.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:00 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
And for the record, this New Yorker has NEVER spent three extra hours waiting to take off from JFK, except for one time that the jetway broke down and couldn't be moved back from the plane - not really a routine occurrance. The hour delays are frustrating, but I'll take them over spending an extra $50 on fares - I can put that to good use once I get where I'm going.

You're a lucky man, then, to have only had it happen once.

On one occasion and one occasion only have I ever taken off from any New York Area airport and had wheels-up occur within 30 minutes of push-back.

And I get paid more than $16.50 an hour, so for me $50 extra to save 3 hours is definitely worth it. Don't wanna pay it? Fly out of Islip or White Plains.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tsnamm
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:01 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
But I also think EWR should be left alone. CO runs the place, they have brought service and lower fares to the region, and if they cared that much about delays, they would trim flights. But if the dominant carrier seems fine with the situation, and their customers seem fine with it, then why inject the government into it? This is the same with ATL, IAH, DTW, etc. In these situations, is it the government's place to say: "I think you should run your business differently and have fewer delays?" That's what they would be doing if they tried to control EWR, ATL, IAH, etc.

JFK is far worse, a far different situation, and far more airlines have a stake in the problems there. If AA cuts flights, it doesn't help, as others fill in the "gaps" ditto for DL or B6, so while on the surface it might seem a delayed airport is a delayed airport, in reality they are different. There needs to be some kind of "traffic cop" sorting through the mess, similar to what happened at ORD.

This is absolutely not true at all...EWR is the most delayed airport in the region...if caps are instituted at JFK more congestion will spill over to EWR causing even worse delays...1st of all "CO" is NOT OK with the delays at EWR. Larry has personally sent a letter to the FAA stating that if caps are instituted at JFK, they must also be instituted at EWR. Otherwise CO's operation will take a further hit with delays caused by carriers seeking a slot free operations,congesting EWR even worse;severely impacting CO's own on time performance further. The customers are not "fine with it" at all. JFK gets more publicity because its the airport actually in NYC proper, and gets the bulk of the bad press for delay issues. However to assume, that the customers "accept" delays at EWR or say ORD, and not at JFK is absurd.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:38 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Don't wanna pay it? Fly out of Islip or White Plains.

Both are as expensive as LGA or more so, and that's before the extra cost in getting there. ISP is $180 more expensive on just the airfare alone.

That's based on a flight to MCO on a random day in January.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
nycbjr
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:45 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:04 pm

I'm going to jump in on this discussion a bit. I have to agree with MIR on this one

As a new yorker who makes allot more than $16.50 an hour I prefer the price not to shoot up $100 a fair either.

If islip or white plains were truly a option for most new yorkers (talking the ones without cars) I'm sure more airlines would service them, and more new yorkers would use them, as it is there really is no direct transportation options to those airports for someone without a car. LGA/JFK/EWR are accessible via subway (train).

Do I like delays? no, however my 10x I flew this year (2 lga, 4 jfk, and 4 ewr), only 2 were delayed more than an hour, and one was because of severe thunderstorms....

There are no simple answers to this, however I don't think reducing slots right now is the answer. I think that less RJ's and some less frequency will improve things quite a bit, and yes larger planes would fix this. However I don't see any major carrier going out and purchasing A380's or 748's, they will simply drop service, and then raise fairs on the remaining. Perhaps congestion priceing is the answer after all? It would (or should) cause the carriers to replace smaller rj's with mainline or larger rj aircraft, and reduce frequency a small bit.

just my  twocents 
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:06 pm

Its all supply and demand.... you can't fix that with regulations. Bottom line is that the airports in the New York area can't handle the schedules airlines are placing on them. There are 3 factors... cheap flights, lots of flights, and on time flights. One of these 3 has to go and the travellers have voted that they want lots of cheap flights, so its on time that goes out the window.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:38 pm



Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 20):
If islip or white plains were truly a option for most new yorkers (talking the ones without cars) I'm sure more airlines would service them, and more new yorkers would use them, as it is there really is no direct transportation options to those airports for someone without a car.

 checkmark  ISP, HPN and SWF are not designed for people living in NYC. They are designed for people living on Long Island and in Westchester/Putnam/Rockland counties, respectively, so that those people have alternatives to JFK, LGA and EWR.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:18 am



Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 20):
Do I like delays? no, however my 10x I flew this year (2 lga, 4 jfk, and 4 ewr), only 2 were delayed more than an hour, and one was because of severe thunderstorms....

I've only flown six times this year (2 EWR, 2 LGA, 2 JFK). Of those flights, only one leg was on time (well, 10 minutes late...and it was red-eye from SFO to JFK on an AA 763). Every other flight was delayed AT LEAST an hour AFTER PUSH-BACK and one was delayed 3 hours before boarding and then 3 hours after we were boarded before wheels-up...and then we had to circle Philadelphia for an hour. Got to SFO at 11PM when I was supposed to get there are 4PM. And my interview was at 0800 the next morning. I had to do this life-altering interview on 4 hours' sleep! (I got the position). Oh, and the weather was crystal-clear all the way across the country. Hardly saw a single cloud the entire 2,500 miles.

And maybe if they do hike the fares, then the free market will take over and there will be expansion and increased ground shuttle service to Islip and White Plains. Maybe one of those airports will expand so much that it will become a new hub. It's a pleasant fantasy, anyway. Either way, I have a friend who has found it to be more cost-effective to take a train to PHL and fly out of there. He's run the numbers and has found that it saves time overall.

Of course, I personally feel that this is simply a symptom of a much deeper problem: the idea of cramming 8 million people onto a single tiny island is, perhaps, not a very sustainable one. Perhaps it simply isn't possible (or at least cost-effective) with current technology. Maybe the entire idea of New York City has gone too far.

Either way, I got fed up about 6 months ago after yet another 45-minute wait inside a subway tunnel stuck in a train like a rat in a cage. The city just put somewhere between a quarter and a half million dollars into training me to be a pediatrician. But I find it so untenable to live here (can't afford to live decently on a pediatrician's wages, fed up with it taking 90 minutes to do what should be a 30-minute commute, sick of the airport delays, completely over brown-outs on 110-degree August days, etc.) that I'm out of here like a bat out of hell. And I'm taking all that expensive training with me. AND... once I leave, I'm not coming back until they fix the delay issue. I can think of other, far more pleasant places to visit that give me fewer headaches.

So as much crowing as people are doing about the cost of fixing the infrastructure, it's going to wind up costing the city a heck of a lot more to leave things be than to fix it. Fixing infrastructure costs money. And if you start to realize how expensive it already is to live here... well it might have to get worse. More people might have to leave because they can't afford it. And that may prove how untenable the very existence of New York City in its current state is.

I, for one, look forward to not having to worry about whether I'm going to be the next poor schmuck standing over the 1920's vintage steam pipe when it explodes.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:42 am



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 21):
Its all supply and demand.... you can't fix that with regulations. Bottom line is that the airports in the New York area can't handle the schedules airlines are placing on them. There are 3 factors... cheap flights, lots of flights, and on time flights. One of these 3 has to go and the travellers have voted that they want lots of cheap flights, so its on time that goes out the window.

the only problem is that in perfect competition there are no constraints long term, in the NYC airline industry the capacity (not at the airline level) is ultimately restricted to a set level of aircraft in the air. Yes, there are upgrades to that constraint which can increase capacity, but they are a few years off... to allow the inputs (carriers) to schedule unlimited capacity into the system when the system is constrained disallows the consumer the opportunity to choose what is important. Basicly, as long as Added Crew cost+added A/c Cost+Added fuel cost keep pace with fares in relation to delays, the carriers are without disincentive to reduce scheduling, which could lead to 200 flts per hour being scheduled at an airport which can only handle 100. If the consumer votes to change from carrier A to Carrier B, carrier B is subject to the same capacity constraint as A which doesn't allow for any incentive to the consumer.... Basicly in short, government intervention is required...

it's not always popular, but sometimes they have to do it....
1.4mm and counting...
 
galapagapop
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
And maybe if they do hike the fares, then the free market will take over and there will be expansion and increased ground shuttle service to Islip and White Plains.

There is not a day cold enough in hell, where the NIMBY's will allow alternate ground transport to HPN, ever!

[Edited 2007-12-18 19:07:02]
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:35 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
The hour delays are frustrating, but I'll take them over spending an extra $50 on fares - I can put that to good use once I get where I'm going.

You say that. But you, like me, probably travel more for leisure than business, so time isn't as much of a factor. And as a college student, $50 is a big difference on a $250 or so ticket. But for Mr. Businessman, whose input is probably far more valuable than mine, is already paying $800 for that Y-fare, so $50 is not that much on a increase, and as stated before, his time is more valuable than that $50.

Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 24):
it's not always popular, but sometimes they have to do it....

I'm not one for government solutions, but I think it may be necessary here. Excessive delays are only one reason. Am I wrong to think safety being jeopardized from overcrowding is also an issue?
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:54 am



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 26):
I'm not one for government solutions, but I think it may be necessary here.

The market is great. Sometimes it fails. It's a matter of figuring out when that "sometimes" is.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:15 am



Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 25):

There is not a day cold enough in hell, where the NIMBY's will allow alternate ground transport to HPN, ever!

Ah, and herein lies a big part of the problem. In fact, this entire problem may well spell the death knell for New York City as an Alpha World City (the four Alpha World Cities are New York, Tokyo, London, and Paris).

To illustrate the nature of the problem: tonight I left swim practice and, due to a train break-down, I had to walk a mile and a half through freezing temperatures and it took over an hour for me to get home (it should take 25 minutes or so).

Now this is not an isolated incident by any means and it illustrates the sort of infrastructural problems that New York faces. Now, London has similar population size, as do Tokyo and Paris. But these cities have smoothly-running transit systems (lest a Londoner protest, I did live there and I would trade the Tube for the Subway in a New York Minute...if you'll pardon the pun), no exploding steam pipes, and functioning electrical supply networks.

Why? Because residents of these cities are willing to pay enough to ensure that their cities operate. London has built a number of new mass-transport lines in recent years and is currently installing CrossRail. They have NIMBYs, too, but they told them that they could blow it out their collective ear and deal with some construction for the good of the greater whole.

Americans are not willing to pay more money to ensure that New York City runs smoothly. Then again, a studio apartment in the Financial District can run you US$3,000 a month. Yup, $100 a night just in rent alone to live in an eensy tiny studio apartment. This is why New York hasn't built a new subway line in 60 years. And the subway line that is finally being built is ludicrously poorly designed.

It's no wonder that the IOC passed NYC over for the 2012 olympics in favor of London. New York has demonstrated that it is not capable of handling its day-to-day load, let alone the additional load of the Olympics.

But this is an airline message board. What does this have to do with air travel?

Well, lots. See, the exact same attitude affects the Port Authority. Actually, PANY/NJ has made some bold moves (like building the JFK AirTrain). The airport terminals are well-kept and clean. But there is no way that more runways will be built. And, frankly, it's not really practical to build enough runways to take up the slack. If you've ever seen the standard 37-plane morning line-up at JFK/LGA/EWR you'll realize that even two new runways per airport wouldn't even scratch the problem. And air traffic would probably just grow to fill the available space.

If you accept that slot auctioning will drive up prices (and I am dubious, since it would force airlines to operate more efficiently), then the choices are:
1) Cheap and completely unreliable.
2) Expensive and reliable.

In other words, if slot auctioning will be expensive, then there may be no inexpensive solution to the problem.

Again, to generalize the issue to the broader scene (ground transit, water, gas, electric, sewage, garbage, etc.), many of us are going to have to accept the fact that living in New York is simply no longer an option. I can't afford the constant delays and I can't afford the cost of living if it gets any higher. I'm sorry, but after twelve cumulative years of education and training to become a physician, I refuse to live crammed three grown adults into a two-bedroom apartment just so I can afford the rent.

So it will be interesting to see what happens to New York City in the next few decades. It appears that the city has reached its carrying capacity. Industries may begin to leave the city en masse to cut costs. If that happens, New York may lose its position as a major world city. And THAT may be the only inexpensive solution to the congestion problem.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4850
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:18 am

I agree SOMETHING has to be done. Limitations seem like the only logical suggestion. I have lost days of my life in delays at EWR mostly during pretty decent weather not three foot deep blizzards. There are just simply too many planes and too many small planes that could be replaced with fewer flights on larger aircrafts. i know it stinks as a business traveller but that is the only logical alternative. the skys are just simply too congested and i for one and worried about the safety at the density they are flying into lga, ewr etc. It just seems dangersously close as i watch the planes fly over
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:24 am



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 26):
You say that.

I do say that, because it's my opinion.  Smile

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 26):
But you, like me, probably travel more for leisure than business, so time isn't as much of a factor. And as a college student, $50 is a big difference on a $250 or so ticket. But for Mr. Businessman, whose input is probably far more valuable than mine, is already paying $800 for that Y-fare, so $50 is not that much on a increase, and as stated before, his time is more valuable than that $50.

I understand that. But if I would prefer cheaper flights to on-time flights, it's not wrong for me to say so.

Airlines do listen more to the business travellers, so if they really want fewer, more expensive but on-time flights, the airlines will provide them. So far they haven't.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:26 am



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 29):
the skys are just simply too congested

No no. The skies are fine. It's the AIRPORTS that have the problem.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:34 am



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 29):
There are just simply too many planes and too many small planes that could be replaced with fewer flights on larger aircrafts.

People need to understand, though, that at least at JFK (not so much at EWR), this means that a lot of markets, and not just small ones, will lose service. The massively overscheduled time at JFK is the time at which AA and DL bring in lots of RJs to connect to their TATL flights. This will arguably have a domino effect, particularly for DL, and lead to the cancellation of some TATL flights which are marginal anyway and are propped up by the 2 people from IND and 3 from BNA that add up. Maybe larger aircraft are the answer, but losing what is in some cases the only service from the U.S. to overseas destinations seems like a steep price to pay.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:53 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
For the record, THIS New Yorker would GLADLY pay a fare hike to not have to wait THREE EXTRA HOURS on the ground waiting to take off.

I never wait 3 hours, but for this Brazilian that lives in NYC 1:15 is just my default nowadays.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
First of all, capping flights would actually result in a cost REDUCTION to airlines. It would force them to use larger aircraft for dense routes (like JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX, JFK-ORD, etc.). Larger aircraft are inherently more fuel-efficient than smaller aircraft, and larger aircraft can carry more passengers than a smaller aircraft while using the same number of pilot (and pilots are 'spensive!).



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
So yeah. Flight caps are EXACTLY what are needed.

Less regional jets, bigger jets... NYC cannot be the main hub for itself and some other closer areas. Take the regional jets to other Hub and from such Hub, increase the size of aircrafts to JFK/LGA.

Some will lost ? Yes, but nowadays ALL of us are wasting valuable time.

Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:02 am



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 33):
Take the regional jets to other Hub and from such Hub, increase the size of aircrafts to JFK/LGA.

UA at IAD and US at PHL would be the big winners if carriers do this... why connect twice when you can only connect once? FWIW, DL has actually been doing this on its own some. By April 1, all flying from JFK to London and Frankfurt will be on 752s as DL routes more connecting traffic through ATL.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:42 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 32):
People need to understand, though, that at least at JFK (not so much at EWR), this means that a lot of markets, and not just small ones, will lose service. The massively overscheduled time at JFK is the time at which AA and DL bring in lots of RJs to connect to their TATL flights. This will arguably have a domino effect, particularly for DL, and lead to the cancellation of some TATL flights which are marginal anyway and are propped up by the 2 people from IND and 3 from BNA that add up. Maybe larger aircraft are the answer, but losing what is in some cases the only service from the U.S. to overseas destinations seems like a steep price to pay.

First of all, RJ's are more of a problem than small markets are. Airlines are starting to use RJ's on main-line routes because they don't have to pay the pilots as much and they enable...yet again...more frequency. They need to knock it off. If you can serve a smaller market with a larger aircraft, then that should be used to JFK.

JFK is not the singular transatlantic gateway to the U.S. that it once was. Passengers in smaller markets can reach just about any airport in Europe and the Mid-East through any other number of East Coast airports, such as BOS, IAD, ATL, MIA, PHL (OK, PHL is pushing it a bit, I grant), and for those who are in the Midwest, ORD, MSP, and DTW.

So I am not so concerned about those smaller markets.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 34):
UA at IAD and US at PHL would be the big winners if carriers do this... why connect twice when you can only connect once? FWIW, DL has actually been doing this on its own some. By April 1, all flying from JFK to London and Frankfurt will be on 752s as DL routes more connecting traffic through ATL.

Then they should stop offering that service, period. If they want to offer JFK-LHR tickets they should code-share with someone else. DL is one of the biggest offenders with this business of using inappropriately small aircraft on very dense routes. I swear, they would use a 737 on JFK-NRT if they could!

UA is, BTW, another horrible offender for using inappropriately small aircraft. I remember back in the late 90's being on a 757 from ORD-SFO. There was another flight, an A320, scheduled to depart on the same exact route FIVE MINUTES before us. Needless to say, we were delayed a bit for spacing. How does that sort of scheduling benefit the airline at all? Just use a 767! These days, UA uses A319's SFO-LGA. Someone at UA needs to be taken out back for a therapeutic beating.  Wink
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14628
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:17 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Airlines are starting to use RJ's on main-line routes because they don't have to pay the pilots as much and they enable...yet again...more frequency. They need to knock it off. If you can serve a smaller market with a larger aircraft, then that should be used to JFK.

This isn't the problem at JFK, though. There are very few markets that see multiple RJs during the busy times at JFK. Keep in mind that JFK is relatively uncongested except in the late afternoon and early evening. You can make the argument at LGA and, to an extent, at EWR, but not so much at JFK.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:20 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
A peak hour slot system is the best compromise answer. Airlines can easily charge higher fares during those periods, and lower fares during the off peak flights, which would suit the budget minded traveler. After all, if the budget minded traveler would rather be delayed 2 hours than pay more, they lose the right to fly at a peak time, at least in my book.

 checkmark 

Agreed. These slots are a commodity, and they are limited in nature. Let the airlines bid on the slots by time of day. A person paying $1000 for a flight has a greater right to an on-time flight than the person paying $200.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:25 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
I understand that. But if I would prefer cheaper flights to on-time flights, it's not wrong for me to say so.

I know. At this point in time, I'm probably in the same boat as you. I'm already paying $350 to fly home for breaks from DAB to North Carolina, so another $50 or $100 to get home on a college income is cutting into my bank account a bit.


I wonder if the solution is in "Reverse Landing fees" at NYC Airports, that is, charging less for a 737 or 757 than for an RJ. You still give airlines the option to serve those smaller markets with small jets, just make them pay for it. Maybe instead of 10 CRJs, they'll cut it down to 4 or 5 737's. I guess at this point, just about anything is worth trying.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Then they should stop offering that service, period. If they want to offer JFK-LHR tickets they should code-share with someone else. DL is one of the biggest offenders with this business of using inappropriately small aircraft on very dense routes. I swear, they would use a 737 on JFK-NRT if they could!

Which is kinda' odd, when you consider DL still sends several 767-300s and even 400s to MCO, TPA, FLL, and JAX from ATL every day, and many other short routes still receive loads of 757 service.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:24 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
So it will be interesting to see what happens to New York City in the next few decades. It appears that the city has reached its carrying capacity. Industries may begin to leave the city en masse to cut costs. If that happens, New York may lose its position as a major world city. And THAT may be the only inexpensive solution to the congestion problem.

You're being overly dramatic. What happens when growth is no longer possible is that growth no longer occurs. It doesn't reverse growth that already *has* occurred.

And that's a *worst case* scenario.

You included Tokyo as one of your "alpha" world cities. Well, Tokyo has a single airport in its city limits that has been slot restricted for years. It has another airport about 50 miles away that has two runways, one of which is blocked by a farm right in the middle of it. This airport has *always* been slot restricted. Yet I don't see anything in your post about industries leaving Tokyo "en masse" because of these issues. (And even if they did, who really cares in the grand scheme of things? Tokyo's been around for 500 years, through plenty of ups and downs; it'll survive just fine.)

Regardless, why is it such a bad thing if New York has reached its carrying limit? So what? We've already got a metro area of 30 million people - does anybody here really *want* more businesses and people than that? At some point, you reach a level where it's just enough already. Where people start moving out just to have more *space*, not because of delays at the airport. New York reached that point a long time ago. No more runways at JFK are going to solve that; in fact, they'll just make it worse.

We don't need more capacity. We need more efficient use of existing capacity. We don't need growth; we need to make what we already have work properly.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Association Pleads No NYC Flight Caps

Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:09 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
UA is, BTW, another horrible offender for using inappropriately small aircraft.

Not really. UA has plenty of large aircraft going domestically. This is the airline that actually runs 777s on domestic routes. Your story of the 757 and 320 seems to be a bad use of aircraft, but perhaps they just didn't have the 767 at ORD available to use at that time of day. Fleets don't just magically change on the whims of the market at that immediate time - if you make a commitment to have a certain number of 767s in your fleet, you're going to have that number for a good ten years or so, and you can't just pick up more at the drop of a hat because you'd rather not have to use two smaller aircraft for a certain route.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
These days, UA uses A319's SFO-LGA.

You mean SFO-EWR (nobody does SFO-LGA as it's perimeter restricted and Saturday-only service isn't worth it). And I have no real problem with that. If the market can't support larger, a 319 is fine. EWR isn't a major market for UA, and JFK is. CO isn't exactly sending the heavy metal on that route either.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos