Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
) that comprises a.net, but this is the first time I can remember that such an argument has been made in a broader public forum.
| Quoting B8887 (Reply 3): The LA area has three international airports and two domestic |
| Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 10): I think the likelihood that LGA will be shut down is slightly less than the likelihood that TEB will be closed and the "limousine liberals" and "Gulfstream environmentalists" will be forced to fly commercial like the rest of us |
| Quoting RayChuang (Reply 13): The big issue with shutting down LGA is how will they divvy up the domestic traffic between JFK and EWR. And can they afford to build essentially all-new domestic terminals to handle the much-increased domestic traffic going in and out of JFK and EWR once LGA shuts down. |
| Quoting Cory6188 (Thread starter): The New York Times published an op-ed today issuing a pretty strong statement in favor of closing LGA in favor of sending all traffic to EWR and JFK. Pretty major statement, given the dominant presence of the publication, both in the tri-state area as well as on a broader scale. |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 14): Quoting RayChuang (Reply 13):The big issue with shutting down LGA is how will they divvy up the domestic traffic between JFK and EWR. And can they afford to build essentially all-new domestic terminals to handle the much-increased domestic traffic going in and out of JFK and EWR once LGA shuts down. At least JFK can landfill more into the bay (if they can get past the NIMBY's). |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 14): EWR expansion is virtually impossible since it's already entirely boxed in by infrastructure on all sides. |
| Quoting cosyr (Reply 19): Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 14): EWR expansion is virtually impossible since it's already entirely boxed in by infrastructure on all sides. What if they moved the Port of NJ over to LGA's land and used the vacated space to expand EWR? More realistically, I've always been a fan of putting a minimum seat limit on LGA. Something like, no flights under 51 seats and a percentage cap on flights under 100 seats. There's no reason the largest city in the US could not fill larger planes with fewer flights. LGA does not need 4 daily CR7 flights to SYR, make it 3 CR9 or 717 flights, and you still have frequency, then move the 4th flight to JFK. |
| Quoting cosyr (Reply 19): More realistically, I've always been a fan of putting a minimum seat limit on LGA. Something like, no flights under 51 seats and a percentage cap on flights under 100 seats. There's no reason the largest city in the US could not fill larger planes with fewer flights. LGA does not need 4 daily CR7 flights to SYR, make it 3 CR9 or 717 flights, and you still have frequency, then move the 4th flight to JFK. |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 21): Quoting cosyr (Reply 19): More realistically, I've always been a fan of putting a minimum seat limit on LGA. Something like, no flights under 51 seats and a percentage cap on flights under 100 seats. There's no reason the largest city in the US could not fill larger planes with fewer flights. LGA does not need 4 daily CR7 flights to SYR, make it 3 CR9 or 717 flights, and you still have frequency, then move the 4th flight to JFK. |
| Quoting ORDTLV2414 (Reply 24): The big move would be move Rikers Island somewhere else and then allow LGA to expand on that land. I do support the perimeter though. LGA is not NYC's heavy lifters, its for business people and tourists and locals flying to and from large/medium size cities. |
| Quoting flyby519 (Reply 25): Making LGA larger would only exacerbate the airspace issues above since it sits between JFK/EWR. |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 27): How does LGA affect the traffic flow or arrival capacity at JFK and EWR? Would closing LGA allow JFK and EWR to use their existing runways more efficiently? |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 28): (they have 4 but can't use all 4 simultaneously at any time |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 28): JFK runway capacity (they have 4 but can't use all 4 simultaneously at any time) |
| Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 28): I think not so much EWR but I read somewhere on A.net that it overlaps with JFK dept/approach pathways, thus limiting JFK runway capacity (they have 4 but can't use all 4 simultaneously at any time) |
 |
| Quoting enilria (Reply 16): EWR and JFK can't be easily expanded. We are closing airports because they can't be easily expanded? That methodology could be used to close nearly all of the world's largest airports and is utter nonsense. |
| Quoting flflyer (Reply 22): this will happen right after they close DCA. |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 30): With JFK's current layout, they couldn't use all 4 runways at the same time anyway without extensive use of LAHSO and that's a "weather-dependent" and "air carrier-dependent" procedure. JFK would be relegated to severe capacity swings depending on precipitation and traffic mix...much like ORD was before they were able to add some additional parallel runways. (and we all know how messed up that was) |
| Quoting corinthians (Reply 31): |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 27): Quoting flyby519 (Reply 25): Making LGA larger would only exacerbate the airspace issues above since it sits between JFK/EWR. How does LGA affect the traffic flow or arrival capacity at JFK and EWR? Would closing LGA allow JFK and EWR to use their existing runways more efficiently? Any N90 ATCers or locally-based pilots on here know for sure? |
| Quoting billreid (Reply 26): What is beautiful is the PONYNJ executives flying around in helicopters, getting paid millions |
| Quoting billreid (Reply 26): The CPE at all three airports are ridiculously high all approaching $30 per passenger yet fixing up the place isn't in the cards. |
| Quoting billreid (Reply 26): PONYNJ |
| Quoting flyby519 (Reply 35): It would certainly allow them to utilize JFK 13L and 13R for arrivals on bad weather days |
| Quoting flyby519 (Reply 35): landing both 22R and 22L. The heavy departures would go 31L and smaller narrow bodies 31R. |
| Quoting B8887 (Reply 3): Just some armchair comments from the other site of the Atlantic. The LA area has three international airports and two domestic. The SFO area has three intercontinental airports. And... Does Mayor Blasio have an opinion on this?... |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37): To run simultaneous ILS approaches to 13L/13R you would need to have finals established approx. 15 miles from the airport and that would put traffic right over EWR and TEB. You've solved the LGA conflict and now you've got new conflicts. |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37): To run simultaneous ILS approaches to 13L/13R you would need to have finals established approx. 15 miles from the airport and that would put traffic right over EWR and TEB. You've solved the LGA conflict and now you've got new conflicts. |
| Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37): Regarding departure runways, it's not that simple just to take the heavies to 31L and smaller narrow bodies to 31R. You end up having northbounds at the south runway and southbounds at the north runway. This creates a crossing scenario for departures so you lose a lot of the efficiencies you would have gained by having true, independent departure runways. Granted, better than having only 1 runway to start with but definitely not the 100% improvement most people think you'd get. |
| Quoting PITrules (Reply 43): By putting traffic directly over EWR that would keep them out of EWR's arrival and departure corridors. Isn't that common practice when transiting across Class B airspace? Vector the transit traffic directly overhead the primary airport. |
| Quoting Cory6188 (Thread starter): The New York Times published an op-ed today issuing a pretty strong statement in favor of closing LGA in favor of sending all traffic to EWR and JFK. |
| Quoting corinthians (Reply 44): The way it is now, 31L departures have to turn South anyways and circle around to go North. |
| Quoting corinthians (Reply 44): Besides, doesn't LAX have southbound departures on the northern runway and vice versa? |
| Quoting nottarockstar (Reply 46): Aren't all SF area airports International? That being said, I'm still in favor of this option: http://manhattanairport.org/ |
