DL Response On JFK/LGA Slots

aa777lvr · Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:13 pm

And....let the A-net banter begin.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13384...-slots.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

jetblue1965 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:22 pm

"Southwest has 51 daily peak day departures from Newark and JFK"

Typo from the article ... I presume they meant Newark and LGA.

"Also Delta serves 34 small-and medium-sized communities that do not have service from any of the five."

That sounded awfully like the AA/US merger boilerplate arguments against any divesture actions at DCA.

MaverickM11 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
That sounded awfully like the AA/US merger boilerplate arguments against any divesture actions at DCA.

Of course--it's always the same issue. Do you want MCO #21 or East Upchuck nonstop service to NYC/WAS/XYZ? The politicians generally prefer the latter.

lesfalls · Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:39 pm

It's not like DL has been also whining recently

silentbob · Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:49 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
Typo from the article ... I presume they meant Newark and LGA

And when did Porter start flying jets? Ted Reed is one of the worst aviation journalists out there.

Polot · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting silentbob (Reply 4):
And when did Porter start flying jets? Ted Reed is one of the worst aviation journalists out there.

It is not unheard of for turboprops to be referred to as jets, especially in a quick throwaway like that line was, as they work very similar to jet engines like turbofans. It is not strictly accurate but it gets the author's point across especially to a non-aviation audience.

IrishAyes · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:04 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
Southwest has 51 daily peak day departures from Newark and JFK"

Typo from the article ... I presume they meant Newark and LGA.

The second I saw "the street" in the link and then saw that the author was indeed Ted Reed, I wasn't shocked in the slightest

jetblastdubai · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
Of course--it's always the same issue. Do you want MCO #21 or East Upchuck nonstop service to NYC/WAS/XYZ? The politicians generally prefer the latter.

That is, and always will be, the dilemma with airports with limited capacity. Do you require only the largest aircraft to fly to the largest markets to utilized the limited slots/facilities in a way to haul the most people or do you use some of the assets to fly smaller planes to smaller markets that would otherwise have no air service to some major cities?

The LCCs want slots to fly duplicate markets while the majors use a lot of smaller aircraft to support smaller markets that might not be able to support mainline service year-around. If the LCC's had their way, half of the US cities would lose air service while the bigger cities would have hourly service to every other big city in narrowbody planes.

I've seen comments by supporters of a certain "unnamed carrier" on here that suggest that the slot controlled airports (EWR in particular) should be restricted to mainline only. What a coincidence that their beloved airline only has mainline so they would be free to operate any aircraft in their fleet while the majors would be restricted. If their intent was to put larger aircraft at busy airports, what would happen if that restriction was adjusted to 739/A321 aircraft or larger during peak hours? That probably wouldn't sit too well with them.

Being from Upper East Upchuck myself, along with Warren Buffet, I understand that we pay a premium for air service simply because we don't benefit from the efficiencies of volume pricing. It doesn't mean that smaller cities should be excluded from having air service to slot-controlled airports simply because they can't fill a 737/A320 six to eight times a day.

jetblue1965 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 7):

I've seen comments by supporters of a certain "unnamed carrier" on here that suggest that the slot controlled airports (EWR in particular) should be restricted to mainline only. What a coincidence that their beloved airline only has mainline so they would be free to operate any aircraft in their fleet while the majors would be restricted. If their intent was to put larger aircraft at busy airports, what would happen if that restriction was adjusted to 739/A321 aircraft or larger during peak hours? That probably wouldn't sit too well with them.

Ironically, said "unnamed carrier" doesn't have any 739/321/757/widebody, currently or on order.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 7):
Do you require only the largest aircraft to fly to the largest markets to utilized the limited slots/facilities in a way to haul the most people or do you use some of the assets to fly smaller planes to smaller markets that would otherwise have no air service to some major cities?

I would agree with this logic if that airport is the only viable one in the region. However, in the LGA scenario, I believe there are some available mid-day JFK slots, so the small communities can definitely use those to maintain reasonable access to the NYC metro. Anyone using public ground transport can definitely tell them that LGA access is no more convenient than JFK access.

Curiousflyer · Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:30 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 8):
I would agree with this logic if that airport is the only viable one in the region. However, in the LGA scenario, I believe there are some available mid-day JFK slots, so the small communities can definitely use those to maintain reasonable access to the NYC metro. Anyone using public ground transport can definitely tell them that LGA access is no more convenient than JFK access.

100% OK

ScottB · Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:03 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 7):
Do you require only the largest aircraft to fly to the largest markets to utilized the limited slots/facilities in a way to haul the most people or do you use some of the assets to fly smaller planes to smaller markets that would otherwise have no air service to some major cities?

The issue is not specifically with reserving some fraction of scarce slot/gate capacity for the purpose of linking smaller markets to key large cities. Rather, it is the fact that the airlines doing so aren't really doing it out of a sense of altruism (or even primarily to provide service to those small markets), but instead to slot-squat and prevent the introduction of more capacity or competition in larger, more lucrative markets.

As an example, DL currently flies between BTV & LGA four times daily. But the O&D traffic in the market is only about 40 PDEW, which implies that the market is overserved given that local demand could easily be carried by one or two 50-to-76-seat aircraft. DL serves BHM-LGA, with over double the local O&D traffic, just twice daily with regional jets.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 7):
It doesn't mean that smaller cities should be excluded from having air service to slot-controlled airports simply because they can't fill a 737/A320 six to eight times a day.

No, but the government does have the responsibility of making sure that scarce public resources -- like runway and gate capacity at constrained airports -- are used prudently for the common good. US used to operate LGA two or three times daily and almost no one used it because the fares were so high. IMO the best solution to ensure small market service would be to allocate a pool of maybe 50 small-market slots which could be used only for 1-2x daily small-/non-hub (as defined by DOT) market service (airlines could supplement with their own slots if desired). And, to encourage airlines to stimulate traffic, the slots could be taken away by other carriers for other small markets if O&D traffic were too low.

calpsafltskeds · Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:23 pm

And if the govenment doesn't want the DL/UA JFK/EWR slot swap to go, then maybe UA just sells its JFK slots to the highest non DL bidder.

global1 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:34 pm

The JFK/EWR slot swap is a done deal.

jetblue1965 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:36 pm

Another solution is to force increase the utilization threshold. Instead of just a 80% utilization requirement, raise that to maybe 85% or even 90%. That way, the airlines would have economic incentive to properly utilize them.

airliner371 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:00 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 11):
And if the govenment doesn't want the DL/UA JFK/EWR slot swap to go, then maybe UA just sells its JFK slots to the highest non DL bidder.

DL already has those JFK slots, if UA doesn't get the EWR slots, DL will just pay UA for the JFK slots and call it a day.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 13):
Another solution is to force increase the utilization threshold. Instead of just a 80% utilization requirement, raise that to maybe 85% or even 90%. That way, the airlines would have economic incentive to properly utilize them.

This was discussed ad nauseum in the last thread on this topic.

OzarkD9S · Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:44 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):

As an example, DL currently flies between BTV & LGA four times daily. But the O&D traffic in the market is only about 40 PDEW, which implies that the market is overserved given that local demand could easily be carried by one or two 50-to-76-seat aircraft.

Local demand and then some. But...LGA is a DL hub and most if not all hubs offer far more seats in most markets than local traffic alone would warrant. Gotta leave "some" room for the pax going beyond the hub. If the planes are full and/or profitable, what gets cut then? LGA is a slot restricted airport though, maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of the slot awarding paradigm at said airports. SNA shuffles them every year.

DCA-ROCguy · Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:25 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 15):
Local demand and then some. But...LGA is a DL hub and most if not all hubs offer far more seats in most markets than local traffic alone would warrant. Gotta leave "some" room for the pax going beyond the hub. If the planes are full and/or profitable, what gets cut then? LGA is a slot restricted airport though, maybe it's time for a complete overhaul of the slot awarding paradigm at said airports. SNA shuffles them every year.

I've long thought some sort of massive reworking of the slot structure at New York airports is needed. Here in DC, DCA is slotted a little below its capacity, and isn't congested. Rain or shine, DCA isn't delay-prone. But the NYC airports are slotted too tightly for their runway capacity, and so they get congested and delay-prone in bad weather. These three airports hurt the entire national system. I avoid NYC airports like the plague.

In short, at least LGA and EWR need to have their slots cut 10 percent, maybe 15 percent, and slots redistributed proportionally, with some restricted to small / medium market service, and a few given to the carriers that wrote the letter. Yes, it'd be a big government intervention, but airports are public facilities, and they should be run for the public benefit. That includes being scheduled in accordance with their rain or shine capacity, and with slot squatting forbidden. Maybe an annual shuffle like SNA's, too.

Jim

Flighty · Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:32 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 15):
If the planes are full and/or profitable, what gets cut then?

What gets cut is whoever declines to pay the monthly airspace traffic management fee. Mainline is more likely to justify the airspace.

But right now, there is no monthly airspace traffic management. No traffic management of any kind, in terms of either providing equal market access, or set punctuality benchmarks. In short, the policy right now is anarchy supervised by entrenched airlines who see themselves as eternal managers of the airspace.

delimit · Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:13 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 8):
Ironically, said "unnamed carrier" doesn't have any 739/321/757/widebody, currently or on order.

That was the point. If small jets at constrained airports are a bad idea, how would people feel if the limit was set at 739/A321 at a minimum?

cosyr · Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:25 am

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 14):
DL already has those JFK slots, if UA doesn't get the EWR slots, DL will just pay UA for the JFK slots and call it a day.

I know that UA would not be stupid enough to not write in some out clause if both parts of the deal didn't go through. Just like when buying a house, making the purchase contingent on the the sale of another house.

Obviously United is not going to go back to JFK, but if they don't get more slots at EWR, I bet they will sell all of these slots at JFK to each of the 5 LCC's in the letter to hurt DL at JFK. "If we can't be stronger, DL can't be stronger..."

delimit · Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:34 am

Quoting cosyr (Reply 19):
I know that UA would not be stupid enough to not write in some out clause if both parts of the deal didn't go through. Just like when buying a house, making the purchase contingent on the the sale of another house.

I thought Delta had already confirmed that the two deals were independent and not conditional on both going through.

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:43 am

Quoting global1 (Reply 12):
The JFK/EWR slot swap is a done deal.

DL got their JFK slots but UA has not legally obtained their EWR ones.

tortugamon

jfklganyc · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:31 am

Quoting global1 (Reply 12):
The JFK/EWR slot swap is a done deal.

Sure isn't...at least on the EWR end of the deal.

UA taking the DL slots is under review and I would expect some sort of divestiture of past actions indicate future actions.

You aren't looking at much though...5-10 slots tops.

mayor · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:55 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21):

DL got their JFK slots but UA has not legally obtained their EWR ones.

As mentioned, earlier, if both deals are independent of the other, the JFK part of the deal can be indeed "done", regardless what happens with the EWR deal.

jetblastdubai · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:57 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
No, but the government does have the responsibility of making sure that scarce public resources -- like runway and gate capacity at constrained airports -- are used prudently for the common good

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
And, to encourage airlines to stimulate traffic, the slots could be taken away by other carriers for other small markets if O&D traffic were too low.

If you're suggesting the government should regulate who should fly where and how many times a day in addition to how big their plane should be, we'll be on a very slippery slope back to regulation.

If you're advocating that VX should be able to take slots away from DL at LGA because DL is currently using an RJ in the slot and VX would have a larger plane then DL should be able to waltz into DAL and demand some WN gates and throw some 757s into DAL. Bigger planes = prudent for the common good!

The slot system might not be perfect but messing with an established policy might cause a lot more turmoil than it's worth.

United alone flies to about 230 US destinations and 227 of those destinations have no slots. What's stopping these petulant, relatively new start-up carriers from adding service in any of these other markets? As most of us know, the revenue per mile is a heck of a lot higher on shorter, secondary city markets than it is in super competitive transcon or NYC-FL markets. Do these LCC want to make money or just fly in the sexy, high profile markets?

DCA-ROCguy · Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:05 am

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 24):
If you're suggesting the government should regulate who should fly where and how many times a day in addition to how big their plane should be, we'll be on a very slippery slope back to regulation.

Not likely. NYC's three airports are the only slotted airports that are congested nowadays, since ORD has two of its new runways and DCA was wisely slotted below capacity. There's no motive to slot anywhere else.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 24):
If you're advocating that VX should be able to take slots away from DL at LGA because DL is currently using an RJ in the slot and VX would have a larger plane then DL should be able to waltz into DAL and demand some WN gates and throw some 757s into DAL. Bigger planes = prudent for the common good!

Nope. DL should file suit in Federal court to strike down the Re-Wright that limits DAL to 20 gates. That airport could probably support double that number without airfield or airspace congestion. If the market wants more gates at DAL it should have them. Plenty for DL and anyone else.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 24):
The slot system might not be perfect but messing with an established policy might cause a lot more turmoil than it's worth.

If NYC's airports weren't slotted above their poor-weather capacity, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't know about JFK, but LGA and EWR both need their number of slots reduced. NYC is a delay disaster which punishes all markets connected to it. NYC should be slot-slimmed, with slots proportionally reassigned, with sufficient slots dedicated for medium and small markets. As noted above, many smaller markets could do fine with 2x or 3x daily with somewhat larger aircraft.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 24):
United alone flies to about 230 US destinations and 227 of those destinations have no slots. What's stopping these petulant, relatively new start-up carriers from adding service in any of these other markets? As most of us know, the revenue per mile is a heck of a lot higher on shorter, secondary city markets than it is in super competitive transcon or NYC-FL markets. Do these LCC want to make money or just fly in the sexy, high profile markets?

Revenue per mile might not be higher on the number of seats many of these carriers would need to fill to be profitable. There isn't the volume. I for one am all for more LCC flights to medium and smaller markets. But the density is in the larger markets. Petulant Delta needs to recognize that NYC airports are public facilities, period, and slots at a public facility aren't their private property.

Jim

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 25):
I for one am all for more LCC flights to medium and smaller markets.

If given the slots at the NYC airports I think there is very low likelihood that we will see LCCs choosing medium/small markets with these slots. We will see more flights to FL and TransCon in my opinion.

tortugamon

jfk777 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:27 pm

Smaller cities always cry about their access to New York and cry its not LGA. JFK has slots available mid-day and can easily handle an E190 or 737 or A320 from Little Rock or Kalamazoo.

Its not Delta's fault all its flights from Greenville, South Carolina or Winston Salem, NC go to Atlanta. Islip has space if its means so much to people.

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:53 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 27):

Smaller cities always cry about their access to New York and cry its not LGA. JFK has slots available mid-day and can easily handle an E190 or 737 or A320 from Little Rock or Kalamazoo.

Its not Delta's fault all its flights from Greenville, South Carolina or Winston Salem, NC go to Atlanta. Islip has space if its means so much to people.

If we stretch it out, there's also HPN, SWF, or even really really far airports like TTN and ACY.

STT757 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:05 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 28):
If we stretch it out, there's also HPN, SWF, or even really really far airports like TTN and ACY.

TTN is closer to Manhattan than SWF, it's about the same distance as ISP:

Distances from Manhattan;

ISP 48
TTN 52
SWF 58
ACY 91

jbs2886 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 27):
Winston Salem, NC

There is no commercial airport in Winston-Salem, NC (it has a hyphen). Winston-Salem uses GSO airport, which does have service to NYC on Delta. It should also be noted that Winston-Salem has a large financial services industry (BB&T headquarters and still a very large workforce for Wells Fargo, largely in wealth management). Also Hanes and Reynolds American are headquartered in the city.

DCA-ROCguy · Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:43 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26):
If given the slots at the NYC airports I think there is very low likelihood that we will see LCCs choosing medium/small markets with these slots. We will see more flights to FL and TransCon in my opinion.
tortugamon

Yes, that's probably correct. That's why I argued that some slots should be reserved for medium-smaller markets, which presumably would be used by legacies that fly those routes today.

Jim

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:50 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 31):

Yes, that's probably correct. That's why I argued that some slots should be reserved for medium-smaller markets, which presumably would be used by legacies that fly those routes today.

I agree with that. The biggest waste is not really about small-to-medium airports with a couple flights into LGA, but the frequency obsession causing airlines to run hourly service, 15x daily, on RJs between the #1 and #3 metros of the country.

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:46 pm

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 31):
That's why I argued that some slots should be reserved for medium-smaller markets, which presumably would be used by legacies that fly those routes today.

I wonder how motivated the US3 will be to run these regional routes if they can't connect those passengers on to their FL/TransCon routes. Could definitely see this backfiring and actually hurting medium sized cities. Hubs aren't inherently a bad thing.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 32):
The biggest waste is not really about small-to-medium airports with a couple flights into LGA, but the frequency obsession causing airlines to run hourly service, 15x daily, on RJs between the #1 and #3 metros of the country.

Waste to who? If you live in the big markets frequency is better. If you don't then access is better. If you're the airline then whatever is more profitable is better. Hard to imagine a gov't entity could regulate this effectively. I prefer open market. Let VX, AS, NK, etc work their way in and grab where they can and grow just like everyone else had to. There really is plenty of opportunity. If opportunity is limited then it should be up to the airports to figure out ways to increase capacity. That is under gov't control and they shouldn't be creating a shortage, especially because it will only get worse.

tortugamon

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):

Waste to who? If you live in the big markets frequency is better. If you don't then access is better. If you're the airline then whatever is more profitable is better. Hard to imagine a gov't entity could regulate this effectively. I prefer open market. Let VX, AS, NK, etc work their way in and grab where they can and grow just like everyone else had to. There really is plenty of opportunity. If opportunity is limited then it should be up to the airports to figure out ways to increase capacity. That is under gov't control and they shouldn't be creating a shortage, especially because it will only get worse.

Frequency is better, but frequency by wasting slots is not better. The concepts of pure laissez faire doesn't apply when it's a finite constrained public resource that's being traded like private property.

DL can feel free to run 50x daily on ATL-DTW if they want - it's not constrained, and it's free market. But when they flood very large markets with tiny planes, that only benefits the airline.

And this isn't a frequency argument - AA and UA can properly fly LGA-ORD with mainline at the exact same frequency, yet DL, the most profitable most on-time blah blah flies 0% mainline.

Cubsrule · Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 34):
And this isn't a frequency argument - AA and UA can properly fly LGA-ORD with mainline at the exact same frequency, yet DL, the most profitable most on-time blah blah flies 0% mainline.

Do you think DL could make money with mainline on CHI-LGA?

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 35):

Do you think DL could make money with mainline on CHI-LGA?

How do you know they can't ? If an airline places X gauge on a route today, how do you automatically assume it'll fail if they place gauge Y instead ?

Would I expect yields to dilute if they switch to 717 ? Very likely. Do I expect them to actually go into red ink ? In this fuel environment, somewhat less likely.

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 34):
The concepts of pure laissez faire doesn't apply when it's a finite constrained public resource that's being traded like private property.

Thats the point, it shouldn't be constrained. Find more capacity, its there if it is run more effectively. And, again, I don't buy that there isn't capacity. Plenty of room into JFK during the day and LGA at night.

I don't mind them selling them like private property either so long as it doesn't cause a monopoly. These airlines are going to find efficiencies a lot easier than a gov't entity could. I think the NYC airline market is pretty competitive. There are 3-7 competitors on nearly every 1st and 2nd tier destination. Not sure how many market can say that.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 34):
AA and UA can properly fly LGA-ORD with mainline at the exact same frequency, yet DL, the most profitable most on-time blah blah flies 0% mainline.

I am sure they would if they could but frequency is important on the most popular route out of NYC (ORD). And they have a flight every hour from ~6am to ~7pm. That sounds like something the largest airline at LGA should be offering especially going head to head with AA and UA on that route. Prices are pretty reasonable as a result. Making DL change its business model through gov't intervention just so OMA can gain a 5th frequency into NYC doesn't sound like its worth the tax dollars for those bureaucrats.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 36):
Would I expect yields to dilute if they switch to 717 ? Very likely. Do I expect them to actually go into red ink ? In this fuel environment, somewhat less likely.

So a gov't entity is going to make an airline make less money. The industry is already taxed enough. If gov't wants to be involved build more capacity and give it to the needy (5 complaining airlines).

tortugamon

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
I am sure they would if they could but frequency is important on the most popular route out of NYC (ORD). And they have a flight every hour from ~6am to ~7pm.

And 100% on barbie jets while AA and UA fly actual mainline. I love this double standard - when UA flies RJs it's "running from the competition" and when DL flies RJs it's "frequency above all".

DL LGA has more %regionals than even UA ORD or UA IAH, so if people want to complain about UA's obsession with RJs, they should look at DL instead.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
If gov't wants to be involved build more capacity

Yea, try getting that kind of proposal pass the NYC NIMBYs.

Cubsrule · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:38 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 38):
And 100% on barbie jets while AA and UA fly actual mainline. I love this double standard - when UA flies RJs it's "running from the competition" and when DL flies RJs it's "frequency above all".

I'm not sure the situations are analogous. Much of the criticism directed to UA relates to the use of 50-seat aircraft on routes that aren't competitive or don't have much competition--stuff like IAD-BNA or DEN-ELP. There's not a good argument that UA needs the frequency in many of these markets, and the 50 seaters are a worse product than mainline. I have a hard time arguing that the DL* E-Jets are a worse product than mainline except arguably in ontime and completion metrics. And, DL is at a significant frequency disadvantage even with the use of E-Jets.

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 39):
I have a hard time arguing that the DL* E-Jets are a worse product than mainline except arguably in ontime and completion metrics.

For the business traveler who is less price sensitive, wouldn't operational reliability - i.e. on-time rates - be one of the most crucial items ?

Cubsrule · Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:16 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 40):
For the business traveler who is less price sensitive, wouldn't operational reliability - i.e. on-time rates - be one of the most crucial items ?

Absolutely (and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise), but that is a distinguishing factor for mainline versus regional for all carriers.

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:26 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 41):

Absolutely (and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise), but that is a distinguishing factor for mainline versus regional for all carriers.

Exactly my point. DL wants to "win new york", but having regionals diminish their on-time rates on such a crucial route definitely shows up :

In the past 60 days, LGA-ORD westbound, mainline+regional, cancelled flights and cancellation rates :

AA 10 flights, 1.12%
UA 12 flights, 1.50%
DL 20 flights, 2.81%

Here's the ORD-LGA eastbound one :

UA 9 flights, 1.13%
AA 11 flights, 1.24%
DL 22 flights, 3.09%

In both cases, DL is heads and shoulders above the other 2. In the end of the day, the passenger will blame the entity called "Delta", not "Shuttle America".

Osubuckeyes · Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
Hubs aren't inherently a bad thing.

Hubs aren't inherently a bad thing but in an instance where there are limited resources devoting ~1/2 of the resources to connecting passengers doesn't seem like a good thing.

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:54 pm

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 43):

Hubs aren't inherently a bad thing but in an instance where there are limited resources devoting ~1/2 of the resources to connecting passengers doesn't seem like a good thing.

It's also two sides to this story. In UA EWR's case, the extra connectivity is what enables it to serve long haul destinations like NCL DEL BOM PVG etc that lacks service across the river by a US carrier, so one can *somewhat* make the economic benefit argument here.

LGA's case for carrying connecting traffic is a lot weaker since those should be routed through JFK. From a connecting pax viewpoint, they should be agnostic regarding JFK vs. LGA, and given the better facilities at JFK T4 vs LGA Term C/D, I'd even argue it's advantageous for the connecting pax to choose JFK in this case (for whatever reason DTW/ATL cannot route it efficiently).

par13del · Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
I am sure they would if they could but frequency is important on the most popular route out of NYC (ORD). And they have a flight every hour from ~6am to ~7pm.

Hopefully the 02:00pm flight is not awaiting take-off when the 03:00pm flight pushes, there used to be a time when a ontime push from a gate meant a take-off within 10 - 15 minutes

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:07 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 38):
DL LGA has more %regionals than even UA ORD or UA IAH, so if people want to complain about UA's obsession with RJs, they should look at DL instead.

Why is that a surprise? There are a ton more regional destinations in the Northeast.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 38):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
If gov't wants to be involved build more capacity
Yea, try getting that kind of proposal pass the NYC NIMBYs.

Building terminal space at JFK, improving transit times including better public transit from JFK/EWR to Manhattan, multi-use gates on LGA, raising gate utilization requirements, remove the distance restriction at LGA, invest in better ATC for the area, reduce fees for offpeak operations at LGA....there really are a bunch of things they can do to increase capacity without having to build runways and bother the nimby's.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 39):
I'm not sure the situations are analogous. Much of the criticism directed to UA relates to the use of 50-seat aircraft on routes that aren't competitive

Agreed.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 43):
Hubs aren't inherently a bad thing but in an instance where there are limited resources devoting ~1/2 of the resources to connecting passengers doesn't seem like a good thing.

For who? For passengers in the Northeast LGA/EWR can be great airports to connect in. Having those same passengers instead having to connect via ORD/DTW/BOS/PHL or worse could make a big difference. There are 12+ runways in the NYC area, surely they don't all have to be dedicated to O&D. If there is excess demand then the airports need to add capacity. The problem will only get worse.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 44):
LGA's case for carrying connecting traffic is a lot weaker since those should be routed through JFK.

Why? I think connecting on DL at LGA is pretty good actually. Changing terminals at JFK is a mess.

Quoting par13del (Reply 45):
Hopefully the 02:00pm flight is not awaiting take-off when the 03:00pm flight pushes, there used to be a time when a ontime push from a gate meant a take-off within 10 - 15 minutes

I think DL had over 85% on time performance last month which was the best in the country. Its the other side of the city where the on-time performance is hurting.

tortugamon

jetblue1965 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):

Why is that a surprise? There are a ton more regional destinations in the Northeast.

?? As opposed to the midwest or the south ? Have you seen what UA's route map looks like around midwest or DL's route map around the Southeast ?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):

I think DL had over 85% on time performance last month which was the best in the country. Its the other side of the city where the on-time performance is hurting.

That's only on a systemwide basis. There's no indication that DL LGA performs any better on-time than UA EWR.

Last 60 days, EWR/LGA-BOS, northbound, mainline+regional :

UA 84% on-time, 0.0% cancel
DL 80% on-time, 0.8% cancel
AA 79% on-time, 5.9% cancel

And your assertion of "hurting" also isn't accurate. For Oct 2015, LGA's total on-time rate is 82.3%, vs. 80.7% EWR. That's less than 2pts difference, if you want to call that "hurting".

tortugamon · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:35 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 47):
if you want to call that "hurting".

I don't think the poster was talking about one airport or another, just in general. Likewise my response was also in general. In general DL is on-time much more than UA. By the way you seem to be trying to pain me as a DL fan and a UA hater. I have multitudes more Star miles than I do Sky. I am just stating the way that I see it. Appreciate the dialogue.

tortugamon

par13del · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:41 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
I think DL had over 85% on time performance last month which was the best in the country.

At LGA or system wide?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net