I just flew out of LGA yesterday on DL LGA-ATL-PHX. I arrived to the airport about 2.5 hours early so I walked to the end of the D concourse to watch the action. I think about 80% of the total movements were on regional jets. The two biggest offenders were the two biggest carriers; DL and AA. I'd estimate that about 90% of the DL movements and about 75% of the AA movements were on RJs. What a waste of precious slots! This airport is obviously not being used to its full potential. Considering it's slot constrained, I would think the airlines would want to maximize their returns. For example, I watched a DL CR7 to JAX board and I think maybe 30 people boarded; a DL CR7 to RIC boarded maybe 25 pax. I'm not sure what the answer is as I'm sure these smaller cities enjoy their access to LGA. But it seems like larger planes to cities with more demand would maybe utilize the slots better and serve more pax. I know things won't change, but these were just my observations yesterday. Comments are welcome.

Bigger than a Dash-8...

I totally agree.

But this problem won't be solved unless we move to a different slot-allocation mechanism. The current mechanism invites regulatory capture, anti-competitive practices, and just generally wastes resources.

Lots of economists have written papers on using a slot auction method to use market forces better match supply and demand of slots. For example:

http://www.dotecon.com/assets/images/slotauctp.pdf
http://www.dotecon.com/assets/images/slotauctr.pdf

FAA once proposed to auction slots in NYC, but the airlines predictably lobbied their lawmakers to nix the idea.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...-to-Auction-NYC-Airport-Slots.html

The airlines were able to spin the proposal as putting more costs on travelers (pay for slots AND security fees AND baggage AND fares?). ...because the traveling public doesn't understand the economics of it.

I'm sure a lot of those passengers would rather hop on a CR7/9 for a short nonstop rather than deal with the hassles of connecting in ATL, ORD, MSP or DFW. At least a majority of the LGA RJ service is flown with 2 class aircraft.

Let's look at facts:

Delta: roughly 250 flights/day. 75 or so mainline. 150 large RJ, 25 small RJ
American: roughly 170 flights/day. 80 or so mainline, 40 large RJ, 50 small RJ/prop

Delta is at roughly 30% mainline, AA is nearly at 50%.

It's so much better that it used to be when US Airways had all the slots!! As mentioned above, the vast majority of DL service is on 2-class aircraft and AA is following suit.

Quoting phxtravelboy (Thread starter): For example, I watched a DL CR7 to JAX board and I think maybe 30 people boarded; a DL CR7 to RIC boarded maybe 25 pax. I'm not sure what the answer is as I'm sure these smaller cities enjoy their access to LGA.

The "smaller cities" you mention are both among the top 50 metro areas in the country... When you remove all the large western cities that have more demand to NYC but can't be served because of the perimeter rule, you're really limiting the options that "should" be served from LGA.

Honestly, the way to lower the number of RJs would be to open up the perimeter. Then you'd see a bunch of smaller cities lose their nonstop service while lots of capacity would be poured into LGA-LAX, LGA-SFO, etc. Short of the perimeter opening up, there's really not much need for more service to most of the biggest cities. YYZ, YUL, DEN, IAH, DFW, MSP, ORD, DTW, MIA, TPA, MCO, ATL, WAS, and BOS all have lots of service to LGA (and are served by multiple carriers).

LGA has to depend almost exclusively on O/D demand. The airport is not set up for connections and has very few. The result is that for service to smaller airports, regional jets are the best option. For high capacity routes to major cities or big destinations like Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Demver, Florida etc mainline plains work. For smaller cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Raleigh Durham, etc with no connections you can't expect more than a regional jet. These cities have demand to New York since it is one of the biggest aviation markets in the country but not enough to fill bigger planes.

One factor you see with the big three is that American and Delta want to sustain a frequent flyer base. They want to serve most cities but when it is to the hub of a different airline, they have little demand since they have small market share. The result is regional jets against larger planes.

Yes LGA could have bigger planes and more seats, but the market does not really justify it. If the perimeter was lifted you would see larger planes and more connections. UA at EWR has a lot of larger planes compared to DL and AA at LGA since it is a full scale hub that allows connections.

We see these threads everyother day, LGA has to many regional flights. The million dollar question is can LGA even handle the amount of passengers that would come by increasing majority or even another 20-30% of flights to mainline equipment? Everything that I have read and seen here and elsewhere is that the LGA terminals are bursting at the seems and can barely handle the passengers it does today. Once the new terminals are built in 10-15 years I can see a higher passage count but until then I think these hypothetical questions are moot because LGA in my opinion simply won't be able to handle the volume of pax passing thru by increasing the size of planes flying in and out of LGA.

Quoting phxtravelboy (Thread starter):

If only WN and B6 had more slots so they could add more flights to Florida.

But seriously, LGA is a frequency airport and not every city can support 4-5 150 seat flights a day.

In addition to all that is accurately stated above, the dumb and unnecessary perimeter rule restricts the destinations that airlines can choose to fly to from LGA. Rest assured if the perimeter was lifted, AA would cut a number of those RJ flights and add 321s to PHX, LAS, LAX, SFO, SEA, etc. DL would act similarly.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 2): because the traveling public doesn't understand the economics of it.

This is true. Thousands of people are inconvenienced every day by the LGA capture.

LGA-PHX is illegal to fly... completely ridiculous.

Quoting bkflyguy (Reply 9): But seriously, LGA is a frequency airport and not every city can support 4-5 150 seat flights a day.

Phoenix can. There is no reason to even HAVE an argument. Who really has the right to use I-95 in the morning? Shouldn't we legislate exactly what type of person is using it? What if they are going to an illegal place?

What if people stay in the St Regis hotel in New York but they came from an illegal origin city? What if their purpose of travel is not politically acceptable? None of these conversations should even be taking place. It is none of my business where flights are going out of LaGuardia or who operates them, only that the traffic is managed appropriately (and it's not).

The way we do this in the US is not through an elaborate system of favors and grandfathering by Party officials. That would be China, or Burma. In the US we use prices, free navigation and guaranteed market access.

[Edited 2015-12-10 07:40:28]

The only way to alleviate the issue is to charge higher landing fees for smaller regional aircraft and lesser fees for larger aircraft. There would be exemptions for service that is deemed essential, such as small markets like Ithaca, Elmira, Morgantown etc..

Push the regional jets off the Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Raleigh flights. This would mean instead of two CR7s to Buffalo replace that with a single A319/73G/MD90 sized aircraft.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): There would be exemptions for service that is deemed essential, such as small markets like Ithaca, Elmira, Morgantown etc..

Well, ITH is no longer connected to LGA. Now it only has EWR, PHL, and DTW. It even used to have PIT service back when US Air controlled most of ITH.

Quoting ty97 (Reply 10): dumb and unnecessary perimeter rule restricts the destinations that airlines can choose to fly to from LGA

Well some call it "dumb and unnecessary." Other's call it practical. There are reasons those perimeter rules were enacted in the first place.

Quoting ty97 (Reply 10): Rest assured if the perimeter was lifted, AA would cut a number of those RJ flights and add 321s to PHX, LAS, LAX, SFO, SEA, etc. DL would act similarly.

Indeed. And lots of cities would likely lose much or all of their air service to New York as slots used are displaced to make way for larger planes flying further. And that may be fine, and a tradeoff that is deemed in the "public interest." It's all about how politicians and bureaucrats define the "public interest." Do we want to incentivize a "maximization" of slot use - defined as the most people being pushed through the airport per slot - or are there other public policy goals and objectives like access to small markets and/or RJ-enabled competition on some routes that is also deemed equally or more beneficial?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): What if people stay in the St Regis hotel in New York but they came from an illegal origin city? What if their purpose of travel is not politically acceptable? None of these conversations should even be taking place. It is none of my business where flights are going out of LaGuardia or who operates them, only that the traffic is managed appropriately (and it's not).

It's not at all comparable, though - airports are public infrastructure, hotels are not.

The barrier to entry in providing new hotel capacity in New York is infinitely less than the barrier to entry in providing new airport capacity. Unfortunately, unlike hotels, they're not building any new airports in New York. As such, politicians have to make decisions about allocating and incentivizing capacity among the airports - thus the decision made decades ago to put restrictions in place that allocate longer-haul capacity to JFK and incentivize shorter-haul capacity to go to LGA. It's no different than decisions made decades ago that because tunnels are expensive and finite, Metro North trains will go to Grand Central and LIRR trains will go to Penn Station - left to their own devices, MTA might want to allocate capacity differently for economic and/or convenience reasons, but practical reality for public infrastructure dictates that it's just not feasible.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): The only way to alleviate the issue is to charge higher landing fees for smaller regional aircraft and lesser fees for larger aircraft. There would be exemptions for service that is deemed essential, such as small markets like Ithaca, Elmira, Morgantown etc.. Push the regional jets off the Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Raleigh flights. This would mean instead of two CR7s to Buffalo replace that with a single A319/73G/MD90 sized aircraft.

Indeed. Peak pricing and/or landing fees priced based on aircraft size would instantly provide a huge economic incentive to upgauging. The other natural consequence of that, though, intended or not, is that competition will almost certainly be diminished in certain markets. All else equal, if you make it less economically attractive to fly small aircraft, then airlines are going to fly fewer small aircraft, and in some markets where an airline is only able to provide nonstop competition because of small aircraft, that is logically going to lead to somewhat less of this nonstop competition in some places. So, for example, will Delta be as competitive on LGA-ORD flying RJs against AA and United's mainline? Or what about AA flying RJs against Delta LGA-MSP?

Quoting commavia (Reply 15): So, for example, will Delta be as competitive on LGA-ORD flying RJs against AA and United's mainline? Or what about AA flying RJs against Delta LGA-MSP?

No, but those resources would go elsewhere where they feel like they can make a profit. Instead of operating services at a loss in order to appeal to certain corporate customers.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): No, but those resources would go elsewhere where they feel like they can make a profit.

Indeed - absolutely. Airlines will respond to economic incentives just like every other business. I was simply stating the obvious - that incentives have consequences, sometimes beyond just those immediately intended.

So if the powers that be define the "public interest" as incentivizing AA, Delta, etc. to allocate resources towards larger aircraft flying (and thus to larger cities), then fine. But everybody should be going in eyes wide open understanding and acknowledging that - because no new airports or runways are being built, and as such slots are a zero sum game - the allocation of said resources to larger aircraft and larger cities is going to mean fewer flights to smaller cities, and fewer flights to big cities where a competitor is smaller and weaker than the market leader.

Delta LGA-ORD or AA LGA-ATL are perhaps prime examples where these airlines' ability to compete effectively against dominant players in these markets is arguably dependent on their ability to use smaller aircraft at higher frequency. So disincentivizing the use of smaller aircraft is, in effect, making the value judgement that the public interest is better served by Delta flying more mainline to, say, Florida as opposed to more RJs to CHI, or AA flying more mainline to, say, Texas as opposed to more RJs to ATL. That is what's essentially at play here.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): Instead of operating services at a loss in order to appeal to certain corporate customers.

Once again - it all defines on how one defines "operating services at a loss." AA or Delta's may operate certain flights or routes at a loss or profit below network averages because the ability to "appeal to certain corporate customers" enables generates substantial revenue and profit in other areas and leads to an overall higher level of profitability for the network.

[Edited 2015-12-10 08:18:02]

This is what happens when you have a perimeter rule. If your capacity is right for the larger markets, the left over slots get flooded with smaller aircraft to small markets because there's nowhere else to go and a larger aircraft isn't economically viable for the given route or time of day. Lift the perimeter rule and these flights get replaced with larger aircraft flying to what are currently beyond perimeter destinations where the economics of the larger aircraft make more sense.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15): There are reasons those perimeter rules were enacted in the first place.

Which are now ridiculous and outdated.

One only has to look at the average seating capacity of flights at DCA and LGA vs the rest of the major airports. Both have right around 100 seats per departure for the year while other airports of similar size average about 130 seats per departure.

Quoting phxtravelboy (Thread starter): I watched a DL CR7 to JAX board and I think maybe 30 people boarded; a DL CR7 to RIC boarded maybe 25 pax.

Please keep in mind that the first 2 1/2 weeks of December is a slow period for airline travel. At other times of the year, those same flights would be carrying a lot more passengers.

I fly MSY-LGA fairly regularly and aircraft varies between mainline and RJ's based on the demand, which changes throughout the year; DL has increased mainline flying to JFK and decreased it to LGA while keeping the same frequencies, and maybe adding a JFK frequency each day. I don't have the statistics, but I recall seeing some on the MSY thread and the load factors were being pretty good with the adjustment of aircraft to match demand.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 18): Which are now ridiculous and outdated.

It seems that many believe the goal is - or at least should be - the maximum amount of seats per departure above all else. If, on the other hand, one believes that the goal is a greater balance of capacity among regional airports, and/or encouraging service to small and mid-size markets, and/or facilitating competition on routes where there are already one or two dominant players, than perhaps the present regime is more effective.

Again - it all depends on what the goal is.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 18): One only has to look at the average seating capacity of flights at DCA and LGA vs the rest of the major airports. Both have right around 100 seats per departure for the year while other airports of similar size average about 130 seats per departure.

That's a highly imperfect comparison, for multiple reasons.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21): Again - it all depends on what the goal is.

Does the St Regis in New York ask guests what their goals are? Why or why not?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 22): Does the St Regis in New York ask guests what their goals are?

Not sure why the comparison to hotels keeps getting repeated. It's irrelevant. Hotels aren't public infrastructure like airports, and unlike airports and runways in the New York area, they can keep adding lodging capacity (building hotel rooms) as demand keeps increasing.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21): If, on the other hand, one believes that the goal is a greater balance of capacity among regional airports, and/or encouraging service to small and mid-size markets, and/or facilitating competition on routes where there are already one or two dominant players, than perhaps the present regime is more effective.

That's not the goal. Never was.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21): That's a highly imperfect comparison, for multiple reasons

Really? Extract the carrier hub airports,now group and sort them. Its the completely perfect comparison. Both are O&D facilities and the only reason their average seats per departure is so low is because of the perimeter rule.

[Edited 2015-12-10 11:53:41]

I've never been to LGA, but I've always heard that LGA simply can't handle any more people. That's one of the reasons why (besides slot hogging) we have so many RJ's at LGA. Is this true?

Quoting BooDog (Reply 25): I've never been to LGA, but I've always heard that LGA simply can't handle any more people. That's one of the reasons why (besides slot hogging) we have so many RJ's at LGA. Is this true?

I don't use Terminal A/C/D enough to really comment on those, but for Terminal B, previously called Central Terminal, there's an absolute lack of breathing room. There are times you prefer to stay land-side until boarding time before moving over to air side.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 25): I've never been to LGA, but I've always heard that LGA simply can't handle any more people. That's one of the reasons why (besides slot hogging) we have so many RJ's at LGA. Is this true?

I don't really think that the capacity of the airport itself is driving airlines to put RJ's ont he routes.

There are a lot of frequencies to mid-sized cities - Columbus has 11+ direct flights per day across DL and AA.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15): It's not at all comparable, though - airports are public infrastructure, hotels are not.

Exactly. Good to see you making this argument. For a while there I suspected you of the simplest free markets fundamentalism, which shook my confidence in the connection between good writing and clear thinking.

Quoting commavia (Reply 15): So, for example, will Delta be as competitive on LGA-ORD flying RJs against AA and United's mainline? Or what about AA flying RJs against Delta LGA-MSP?

Quoting commavia (Reply 17): So disincentivizing the use of smaller aircraft is, in effect, making the value judgement that the public interest is better served by Delta flying more mainline to, say, Florida as opposed to more RJs to CHI, or AA flying more mainline to, say, Texas as opposed to more RJs to ATL. That is what's essentially at play here.

More mainline would be the result of ejecting RJ's of course, but operator identities probably would change as well - depending on the regulatory regime chosen. Slot auctioning, for example, would really shake things up.

IMJ the concern about competition isn't key here.

-The choice isn't between free competition and monopoly; it's between restricted-supply duopoly and monopoly. A monopolist forced/incentivized to increase supply over the duopoly will likely charge lower prices
-NYC has two other airports to keep an LGA monopolist honest on service quality

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): The only way to alleviate the issue is to charge higher landing fees for smaller regional aircraft and lesser fees for larger aircraft.

A slot auction would likely have the same effect but with the added benefits of (1) providing a market signal for more efficient regulatory choices and (2) raising public infrastructure revenue without any deadweight loss.*

*In the long term, deadweight loss would occur if authorities improperly maintained slot scarcity to preserve their rent-making ability. Because NYC is unlikely to gain slots any time soon, this seems unlikely.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 25): I've never been to LGA, but I've always heard that LGA simply can't handle any more people. That's one of the reasons why (besides slot hogging) we have so many RJ's at LGA. Is this true?

Last year in September (slower travel month supposedly) I flew DLX STL-LGA-RIC with about a 90 minute layover. On a Thursday. Mid-afternoon. Arrived at Terminal D, ten minutes ahead of schedule. GASP! Was looking for a place to grab a late lunch, saw the sit down place in D but walked over to C just to see if I was missing anything. No I was not. So I went back to D and had the world famous $20 NYC cheeseburger and fries. Was quite good but would've been $10 anywhere but an airport. Kept an eye on my departure gate and time. Meandered over to the gate and grabbed the last empty seat anywhere near my gate for my flight.

2/3 of the gates at D were occupied by CR7/CR9 with a few 319's. The place was PACKED. If all those planes had been even 717/319 sized with the resulting crush of people it would have been heinous. One can argue for full mainline at LGA but that would border on the inhumane with the present concourses. I cant imagine what it was like when DC10's and L1011's were operating there.

Having said that, for all I hear about LGA...on that day...it ran pretty smoothly. I would not have wanted to be there during a rainstorm or snowstorm. But I wanted to experience the DL LGA hub and I did.

Airlines stand to make far more money flying larger planes to bigger cities than on serving small cities with 50 seat RJ'S.
However this will not change at LGA unless the perimeter rule is relaxed or dropped.

One thing nobody's mentioned is that in a lot of cases (such as LGA-RIC), the route is subsidized by the city at the other end of the route. If a large company is looking for a place to open up a new branch or relocate HQ, and are looking at the pros and cons of each city, frequent service to NYC (and particularly LGA) goes in the "pro" column. Cities trying to attract more corporate tax dollars include air service to LGA in their sales pitch. So all those flights that you assume are "flying at a loss" because you saw only 25 people get on the plane, are actually making a profit.

Quoting FSDan (Reply 5): It's so much better that it used to be when US Airways had all the slots!! As mentioned above, the vast majority of DL service is on 2-class aircraft and AA is following suit.

So true. US was a disgrace at LGA. 20 props a day to PHL. Their ramp looked like a GA ramp at a flight school. Terminal C and the former US slots now have a useful purpose with DL!

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6): UA at EWR has a lot of larger planes compared to DL and AA at LGA since it is a full scale hub that allows connections.

It does?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 18): Which are now ridiculous and outdated. One only has to look at the average seating capacity of flights at DCA and LGA vs the rest of the major airports. Both have right around 100 seats per departure for the year while other airports of similar size average about 130 seats per departure.

You mentioned DCA. Ultimately, the LGA perimeter won't be lifted or loosened because of what happened to IAD when the DCA slots were lifted.

People misunderstand the perimeter rule in NY.

The perimeter rule was put in place by the airport operator to get people to use the far larger, more distant airport. It was challenged by Delta 35 years ago and found to be perfectly legal by the Supreme Court.

That said, you may not like the rule or the intention of the rule, but it does its job very well as far as the airport operator is concerned.

Without the perimeter rule, the LAX/SFO shuttles would move to LGA tomorrow, and JFK would lose most of its domestic service...imperiling the international service that many domestic passengers connect to (close to 30% of JFK pax are connectors, higher than EWR).

Smaller RJ flights would not move to JFK from LGA. The service would simply cease to exist in the quantities it exists now.

LGA would become very overcrowded and serve over 30 million pax per year, while JFK would lose a huge amount of passengers. The crown jewel airport of the Port Authority would become a busier version of Malpensa or Dulles.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 24): That's not the goal. Never was.

Untrue. The goal of the perimeter rule absolutely was - and remains - to incentivize a more balanced allocation of capacity between LGA and JFK and protect the huge public and private investment(s) made in infrastructure at JFK:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32): The perimeter rule was put in place by the airport operator to get people to use the far larger, more distant airport. It was challenged by Delta 35 years ago and found to be perfectly legal by the Supreme Court. That said, you may not like the rule or the intention of the rule, but it does its job very well as far as the airport operator is concerned. Without the perimeter rule, the LAX/SFO shuttles would move to LGA tomorrow, and JFK would lose most of its domestic service...imperiling the international service that many domestic passengers connect to (close to 30% of JFK pax are connectors, higher than EWR). Smaller RJ flights would not move to JFK from LGA. The service would simply cease to exist in the quantities it exists now. LGA would become very overcrowded and serve over 30 million pax per year, while JFK would lose a huge amount of passengers.

  

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32): The crown jewel airport of the Port Authority would become a busier version of Malpensa or Dulles.

Not sure it would be quite that dramatic, but agree with the thought in principle.

[Edited 2015-12-10 17:44:44]

I think that the only way to balance this out would be to reduce the slot holdings of each airline that has above X slots by 10%, then on top of that if the airline cuts a destination to compensate for the lost slots have the airport authority take back the number of slots at which at route ran prior to any reduction due to the slot swap. This ensures that airlines will decrease frequency across the board but upgauge airplanes at the same time while also not cutting destinations. Kind of like forcing the hand of airlines into the outcome you want. DL really doesn't need 9x LGA-DTW or AA 13x LGA-DTW. This would also benefit the overall NY airspace by reducing congestion.

LGA was made for the 737/A320 family and EMB 170/175/190 aircraft. Both AA and DL have proven that. AA more so than DL. All Envoy flying is gone from LGA and the few ERJ-145 with Trans States for AA will be gone soon as well. Republic has brought in the exact type of planes that AA needed out of LGA - the 170 and 175 in dual class carrying anywhere from 69 to 76 passengers. And American Shuttle
Flights to BOS and DCA are all dual class 190's. Expect mor
growth from AA at LGA they are not scared of DL and tapping into their "territory", you do
not need larger aircraft to compete.

3x daily 170/175 to MSP coming in January
2x daily 170/175 to JAX coming in January

To name a few...

Your LGA based YX FA

Quoting phxtravelboy (Thread starter): But it seems like larger planes to cities with more demand would maybe utilize the slots better and serve more pax.

That depends on your definition of the best utilization of a slot. Is it just serving as many people as possible? I don't think so...That's never the most profitable strategy anywhere else.

The elephant in the room with these arguments, much like the DCA arguments, always comes back to "whats the purpose of LGA." Is it to whisk locals away to vacay? Is it to give communities access to the major business center that is NYC? Is it to carry as many people as possible through the airport? Seems like everyone's argument is based around one of those view points.

Quoting twaconnie (Reply 30): Airlines stand to make far more money flying larger planes to bigger cities than on serving small cities with 50 seat RJ'S.

I don't think that's written in stone anywhere. They're seeking margins.

Yes, some slots are set aside for smaller markets, but the 15 RJ's (or whatever) to places like RDU aren't part of that. That stuff is entirely the airlines doing.

Lets assume the perimeter rule didn't exist. Obviously the western hubs all get LGA.. but are you going to get the same margin on a 757 to Vegas that you would on a CR7 to Charlottesville? I don't know the answer to that, but I do wonder how many routes the airlines wish they could fly from LGA that they can't. I don't believe the number would be as high as some thing.

Quoting commavia (Reply 33): Untrue. The goal of the perimeter rule absolutely was - and remains - to incentivize a more balanced allocation of capacity between LGA and JFK and protect the huge public and private investment(s) made in infrastructure at JFK:

Which, as I said, is completely unneeded today. Has nothing to do with keeping service to small markets which you tried to claim earlier.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21): seems that many believe the goal is - or at least should be - the maximum amount of seats per departure above all else. If, on the other hand, one believes that the goal is a greater balance of capacity among regional airports, and/or encouraging service to small and mid-size markets, and/or facilitating competition on routes where there are already one or two dominant players, than perhaps the present regime is more effective.

JFK doesn't need protection, nor does IAD.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32): Without the perimeter rule, the LAX/SFO shuttles would move to LGA tomorrow, and JFK would lose most of its domestic service...imperiling the international service that many domestic passengers connect to (close to 30% of JFK pax are connectors, higher than EWR).

Who cares if the shuttles move? They whole idea of the shuttle is domestic O&D flow.

Imperiling? Completely false. This isn't the 1980s or 1990s for that matter. Exhibit A: LAX. Exhibit B: SFO. Exhibit C: ORD. Exhibit D: DFW. Exhibit E: IAH. Multi airport systems with ample domestic service and zero impact to the international flow. Yes, some domestic service will shift, but no one is going to draw down a JFK hub and if DCA is free UA won't be dumping IAD any time soon because there simply isn't enough operational capacity at DCA to absorb the market. Same for LGA. Service simply shifts, and the market balances itself out based on operational capacity of the facilities.

You want a rule in place at LGA and DCA? You limit the size of aircraft to a 757 which the runway length pretty much takes care of anyway. You want to limit it to the US, Mexico and/or Canada to concentrate long haul international elsewhere that's fine too. You don't slap an arbitrary circle on it and dump a bunch of viable US markets forcing carriers to jockey for them.

[Edited 2015-12-11 06:25:28]

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32): UA at EWR has a lot of larger planes compared to DL and AA at LGA since it is a full scale hub that allows connections. It does?

It does, UA has over 210 mainline departures from EWR. DL is around 75 mainline departures from LGA.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): Exhibit A: LAX. Exhibit B: SFO. Exhibit C: ORD. Exhibit D: DFW. Exhibit E: IAH. Multi airport systems with ample domestic service and zero impact to the international flow.

None of these airports face a similar situation as the LGA/JFK combo. LGA is also slotted over-capacity and causing major congestion in the NY airspace.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): Which, as I said, is completely unneeded today.

According to you.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): Has nothing to do with keeping service to small markets which you tried to claim earlier.

No I didn't. Go back and re-read my earlier comment a little more closely - paying special attention to the multiple uses of "and/or."

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): JFK doesn't need protection, nor does IAD.

According to you. Apparently the PANYNJ disagrees.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): Exhibit A: LAX. Exhibit B: SFO. Exhibit C: ORD. Exhibit D: DFW. Exhibit E: IAH. Multi airport systems with ample domestic service and zero impact to the international flow.

Again - highly imperfect with numerous confounding variables that render the comparisons essentially meaningless.

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 39): None of these airports face a similar situation as the LGA/JFK combo. LGA is also slotted over-capacity and causing major congestion in the NY airspace.

Which makes the case even stronger. LGA and DCA can't handle their respective market capacity on their own anyway. Slot LGA to a manageable runway capacity level, reduce the number of gates to match the throughput and let the market manage itself. You don't need limit its service options with some arbitrary circle. In other words, you don't try to solve an operational problem with a bureaucratic market based solution. You solve it with an operation based soltution and let the market do its own thing. I think people often forget that both airports are run mayb largely inflexible monoliths that couldn't work themselves out of a closet if they had too, they are entirely incapable of thinking out of the box, nor are they capable of articulating what is needed to the public. Case in point, DCA neighbors don't want larger aircraft, while they ignore the massive influx of E-Jets that have a noise impact far greater than a 737 because of their crap climb profile. Larger aircraft to new markets in exchange for short haul E-Jets would actually be a net improvement with regard to noise. Do they even try to explain this? No. Why? They aren't smart enough. It's not rocket science either.

[Edited 2015-12-11 07:04:44]

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37): Yes, some domestic service will shift, but no one is going to draw down a JFK hub and if DCA is free UA won't be dumping IAD any time soon because there simply isn't enough operational capacity at DCA to absorb the market. Same for LGA. Service simply shifts, and the market balances itself out based on operational capacity of the facilities.

Have you seen or read any of the threads on a.net about what is happening to UA at IAD????

Interesting Analysis Of UA's IAD Hub (by TWA85 Dec 10 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting STT757 (Reply 38): It does, UA has over 210 mainline departures from EWR. DL is around 75 mainline departures from LGA.

What is the mainline percentage on DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE ROUTES + DEN?

What is the actual number of mainline flights on DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE ROUTES + DEN?

Don't include the west coast or international to inflate numbers. LGA serves DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE + DEN routes only. That is the real way to get an accurate comparison.

UA is a terrible offender of restricting capacity at slot controlled EWR to raise fares.

Just 2 weeks ago we read that UA doesn't use 80-90 slots at EWR each day!!

Keep in mind that EWR has the same arrival rate at JFK, yet sees 20 million pax less per year than JFK. Those are your UA RJs and dormant slots.

I don't want anybody walking away from this thread thinking UA at EWR uses larger aircraft because it is a fortress hub. Quite the opposite. UA at EWR squats, depresses, and blocks a slot restricted airport from realizing its full potential.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 42): What is the mainline percentage on DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE ROUTES + DEN? What is the actual number of mainline flights on DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE ROUTES + DEN? Don't include the west coast or international to inflate numbers. LGA serves DOMESTIC, WITHIN 2500 MILE + DEN routes only. That is the real way to get an accurate comparison.

First, stop shouting in all caps. Second, LGA is 1500mi perimeter not 2500.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 42): Keep in mind that EWR has the same arrival rate at JFK, yet sees 20 million pax less per year than JFK. Those are your UA RJs and dormant slots.

Try fitting 20mil extra pax into those 3 crammed terminals at EWR and see what happens. And the point of discussion here is LGA so I don't see what's the point to bring up JFK.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 42): Have you seen or read any of the threads on a.net about what is happening to UA at IAD????

Yeah, they also pulled out of JFK. And?

Its a free market. This isn't 1977. Airlines live and die on their own these days.

(BTW...a.net is now an authority on this? Are you kidding?)

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 42): I don't want anybody walking away from this thread thinking UA at EWR uses larger aircraft because it is a fortress hub. Quite the opposite. UA at EWR squats, depresses, and blocks a slot restricted airport from realizing its full potential.

Nothing like government market manipulation to make things right!  

Quoting phxtravelboy (Thread starter): The two biggest offenders

By "offender," you mean major air carriers with the ability to send their aircraft anywhere but who choose to provide service to those who need to travel to/from New York at times and frequencies designed to serve the needs of the market?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 45): Its a free market.

It isn't, and it never has been, when it comes to airports. Airports are public infrastructure - and like all public infrastructure, they are not now nor have they ever been anything even close to resembling a "free market," especially in a place like NYC where demand for airport capacity has perpetually outstripped supply for - in at least some cases - decades.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 41): Case in point, DCA neighbors don't want larger aircraft, while they ignore the massive influx of E-Jets that have a noise impact far greater than a 737 because of their crap climb profile. Larger aircraft to new markets in exchange for short haul E-Jets would actually be a net improvement with regard to noise. Do they even try to explain this? No. Why? They aren't smart enough. It's not rocket science either.

Can you explain to me how an e-jet is louder than an Airbus or Boeing narrowbody? That's the first time I've ever heard of that. I didn't think the E-jets had any climb problems since they have leading edge devices and they use them in places like EYW, LCY, etc..

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 34): DL really doesn't need 9x LGA-DTW or AA 13x LGA-DTW. This would also benefit the overall NY airspace by reducing congestion.

I assume you meant DL 9x LGA-DTW and AA 13x LGA-DFW. Those are hub markets and are all mainline on both carriers. Those are not candidate routes for frequency reductions as they are flown as such to align with the major conncting banks at the hub. DL flies 9x DTW-LGA with 717, A319, A320, 738, MD90 equipment, and has a flight departure in each departure bank throughout the day. Airlines are not going to cut hub frequency in a market like this that is needed as a part of the network and to enable connections to all of the beyond perimeter markets, international, and the small markets that do not have LGA nonstops.