LGA. Wow! What A Waste Of Slots. RJ Central

Boeing717200 · Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:30 pm

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 48):

Can you explain to me how an e-jet is louder than an Airbus or Boeing narrowbody?

This is well known at noise sensitive airports that are required to monitor. Its not much better than an MD-88.

Takeoff noise is even with an A320 with a V2500, approach is even with a 737 and flyover is 12-15db higher than both the 320 and 737. Cumulative is 2db higher than both. The problem is its underpowered. Once up, the A320 and 737 climb faster so the net impact is less. The GTF will no doubt fix this, but for now its ugly.

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 48):
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..

This doesn't make them quieter. You're also looking at runway performance, not the climb (beyond about 1/4 mile) which is where the noise becomes an issue.

[Edited 2015-12-11 13:45:34]

Boeing717200 · Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 47):
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.

It is a free market, airports are open to everyone, yet a few have decided that they want to limit the free market with artificial barriers that in today's environment make zero sense.

Thomaas · Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:27 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 51):

Quoting commavia (Reply 47):
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.

It is a free market, airports are open to everyone, yet a few have decided that they want to limit the free market with artificial barriers that in today's environment make zero sense.

Talk about a free market when all airports look like DFW or DXB, till then, there ARE constraints on infrastructure that have to be kept in mind. The free market has failed airports in the NY area, you can see this by the long delays all the time. The problem is that in today's market, each airline is just looking at maximizing its own position (which it should) but that leads to everyone being impacted by frequent delays. Its more than time for someone to step up and sort the mess the airlines have created by hoarding as many slots as they can and operating overcapacity at these airports. Your opinion of an efficient market involves frequent 2+ hour delays.

[Edited 2015-12-11 15:28:25]

Boeing717200 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 52):
Talk about a free market when all airports look like DFW or DXB, till then, there ARE constraints on infrastructure that have to be kept in mind.

That isn't an artificial constraint though, that's a real constraint.

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 52):
Your opinion of an efficient market involves frequent 2+ hour delays.

The airport is overbuilt in terms of the number of gates. LGA specifically shouldn't have more than 60 gates. The availability of 72 gates is what causes the overscheduling of the airfield which is what causes the delays. The 72 gates reflect the old gate to runway capacity model with longer assumed turn times. This hasn't been updated since the mid 1980's and its long overdue. Until the FAA fixes that, airports will continue to overbuild the number of gates for a given runway configuration and airlines will continue schedule flights into open gates that the airfield itself cannot support. The result of this will be that when the weather occurs, the airport as a system will crash.

[Edited 2015-12-11 16:18:35]

jfklganyc · Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:39 pm

Not shouting. I want posters to read the issue at hand. And yes 1500 miles with the DEN exception.

How do the facts stack up now that your done critiquing my post?

When you look at EWR/UA and you take out everything beyond the LGA perimeter and international....UA isnt heads and shoulders above DL in terms of mainline flights

STT757 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:00 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 54):
When you look at EWR/UA and you take out everything beyond the LGA perimeter and international....UA isnt heads and shoulders above DL in terms of mainline flights

Boston:

UA EWR-ORD = 12 daily mainline (2 A319, 2 A320, 4 73G, 1 738, 2 739, 1 763)
UA EWR-BOS = 10 daily mainline (1 A319, 4 A320, 1 73G, 2 738, 2 739)

DL LGA-BOS = 9 mainline (717)
DL LGA-ORD = No mainline, all Regional

Those are probably the two busiest business routes from each airport.

A couple of other samples:

UA EWR-RDU - 2 daily mainline (A320, 739)

LGA-RDU= no mainline

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:56 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 55):

UA EWR-ORD = 12 daily mainline (2 A319, 2 A320, 4 73G, 1 738, 2 739, 1 763)

Hub to hub for UA. And Delta operates smaller jets to maintain an hourly shuttle. The size of the plane used supports the frequency of the service.
Hardly comparing like to like.

[Edited 2015-12-12 10:00:40]

strfyr51 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:07 pm

I've not been to LGA in a bunch of years But I can see the scenario now why UAL /UAX bought all those E175's..
That airplane is configured as close to mainline airplanes as is possible. So if a passenger moved from an E175 to a B737 series or an A319 or A320 the move would not be traumatic and would look like just a larger version of the same.
Stand up cabin, Galleys etc.

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 56):

UA LGA-ORD, which isn't hub to hub, still has far more mainline than DL's service.

There are small tiny markets where RJ is inevitable, so I don't blame airlines for offering service when the choice is either RJ or zero service. The issue is when non-mainline is deployed at very high frequency to markets that clearly can support some mainline service. In this particular example LGA-ORD, a 10x daily on 717 can easily be just as competitive to the business flyer. I don't buy the argument that DL would be uncompetitive unless they identically match AA and UA's frequency one for one.

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 58):
UA LGA-ORD, which isn't hub to hub, still has far more mainline than DL's service.

That's nice. The size of the plane is driven by the frequency of the service.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 58):
In this particular example LGA-ORD, a 10x daily on 717 can easily be just as competitive to the business flyer. I don't buy the argument that DL would be uncompetitive unless they identically match AA and UA's frequency one for one.

You're making a faith based argument. Delta thinks there is value in offering hourly service. They actually have the numbers to make that decision.

[Edited 2015-12-12 10:23:47]

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 59):

That's the whole point of the original post should slots of a constrained airport be allocated based on greater public good (the view that these are public assets) or just greater profitability (the view that these are private assets) ? And how many smaller destinations no longer have LGA access due to 15x all regional flying ?

Take the same LGAORD. If it's lowered to 10x mainline, there's 5 extra slots where DL can up their game to DEN IAH DFW. Right now that 2-3x to DEN to woefully uncompetitive no matter how one wants to slice and dice it.

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:39 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 60):
That's the whole point of the original post should slots of a constrained airport be allocated based on greater public good (the view that these are public assets) or just greater profitability (the view that these are private assets) ?

Or c) there should be a balance. If it was purely based on providing service, the slots would be tied to destinations.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 60):
And how many smaller destinations no longer have LGA access due to 15x all regional flying ?

On Delta? None? The last mention of Delta cutting a route out of LGA I can find was in 2000.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 60):
Take the same LGAORD. If it's lowered to 10x mainline, there's 5 extra slots where DL can up their game to DEN IAH DFW. Right now that 2-3x to DEN to woefully uncompetitive no matter how one wants to slice and dice it.

Or they could serve a more strategic market hourly like they are. Because they find more value doing that. Chicago is the number one destination out of LGA. IAH doesn't even make the list.

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:48 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 61):

This is still the view of "they" , meaning the airline not the traveling public. If a public resource is constrained, why does the public have no say as to how to allocate it ? This would be like the water company prioritizing the wealthy during a drought and a period of water rationing.

The biggest irony I find is that DL touts their mainline service everywhere else, but when it comes to NYC, you know, where tough competition exists, then the rules no longer apply.

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 62):
If a public resource is constrained, why does the public have no say as to how to allocate it ?

They do. It's called the Federal Government.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 62):
This would be like the water company prioritizing the wealthy during a drought and a period of water rationing.

That's nonsense.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 62):
The biggest irony I find is that DL touts their mainline service everywhere else, but when it comes to NYC, you know, where tough competition exists, then the rules no longer apply.

Oh please. LGA has a low share of mainline because of the perimeter rule. How does Delta look at JFK?

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 63):

no, the perimeter rule part is nonsense. DL is regional heavy at LGA precisely because they don't want to compete. Last time I checked, a ton of large cities like BOS PHL WAS CHI DEN DFW IAH ATL MCO FLL/MIA are within perimeter, plus countless other cities. It's not like the perimeter rule only allows ITH and PVD.

DL JFK, as of the most recent data point I have, is just 58% mainline, far below the 78% at ATL. And supposedly JFK, because of its emphasis on transcon and long haul, should be extremely mainline heavy, and data shows otherwise.

Combining LGA and JFK, DL is what ? 180-200 mainline ? UA EWR alone has maybe 210.

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:16 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64):
no, the perimeter rule part is nonsense. DL is regional heavy at LGA precisely because they don't want to compete.

This is utter nonsense. Delta seems to be competing fairly successfully right now. Have you missed their performance numbers?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64):
Last time I checked, a ton of large cities like BOS PHL WAS CHI DEN DFW IAH ATL MCO FLL/MIA are within perimeter, plus countless other cities. It's not like the perimeter rule only allows ITH and PVD.

Just what we need. More service to Florida. Go look at the LGA route map for Delta. Do you think they are serving those destinations because they are less profitable for them but "don't want to compete"? That's seriously far fetched.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64):
DL JFK, as of the most recent data point I have, is just 58% mainline, far below the 78% at ATL. And supposedly JFK, because of its emphasis on transcon and long haul, should be extremely mainline heavy, and data shows otherwise.

People from lots of places want to get on those longhaul flights. Delta offers their customers a single connection out of JFK.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64):

Combining LGA and JFK, DL is what ? 180-200 mainline ? UA EWR alone has maybe 210.

The number of total flights offered isn't the same. What are the percentages?

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 65):

DL is less than 30% LGA and less than 60% JFK .... Compared that to nearly 80% ATL.

Do you have any justification why JFK is lower than ATL ?

kcrwflyer · Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:57 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 66):
DL is less than 30% LGA and less than 60% JFK .... Compared that to nearly 80% ATL.

Do you have any justification why JFK is lower than ATL ?

Because all of those JFK flights are transcon or feeding the international. There are less international passengers than domestic passengers. Even in the best local markets, once you start to scale your operation, International needs feed.

ATL is the worlds largest hub so the amount of traffic justifies all of the seats.

delimit · Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:24 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 66):
Do you have any justification why JFK is lower than ATL ?

Reread what I wrote.

Do you have a percentage for mainline versus regional for UA at EWR?

jetblue1965 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:27 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 68):

As of my recent data point, UA EWR is 48.0% mainline. If you combine DL LGA and JFK the figure is roughly 42-43%.

AADC10 · Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:50 am

One way to gently nudge the airlines to reduce the number of RJs at LGA would be to flatten the landing fees. Landing fees are weight based so RJs pay less than mainline flights. If the fees were all the same, with an RJ's fee the same as a 757, then it would encourage larger planes but not as much as slot auctions. It would be worth paying the fee for smaller destinations but it would slightly discourage high frequencies between the same cities on RJs.

jfklganyc · Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:36 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64):

Combining LGA and JFK, DL is what ? 180-200 mainline ? UA EWR alone has maybe 210.

Within 1500 miles and DEN, how many mainline flights does UA have from EWR?

My guess it is very comparable to DL at LGA.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 69):

As of my recent data point, UA EWR is 48.0% mainline. If you combine DL LGA and JFK the figure is roughly 42-43%

You are using UAs International and beyond 1500 mile ring to skew your data.

Again, for the third time, compare Delta LGA to UA EWR within 1500 miles plus DEN.

Any other comparison is complete BS because it is not flyable from LGA.

Using a UA mainline flight to BCN or NRT in the same comparison to a LGA perimeter operation is comparing a Menorah and a Christmas Tree. Completely irrelevant.

Thomaas · Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:39 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 71):
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 69):

As of my recent data point, UA EWR is 48.0% mainline. If you combine DL LGA and JFK the figure is roughly 42-43%

You are using UAs International and beyond 1500 mile ring to skew your data.

Again, for the third time, compare Delta LGA to UA EWR within 1500 miles plus DEN.

It isn't an unfair comparison because it includes BOTH LGA&JFK for DL so its pretty much apples to apples.

Curiousflyer · Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:34 pm

While I hate the use of RJs I wonder if it also partially due to the space constraints at LGA: the taxiways are already congested at peak hours with those small airplanes, imagine what it would be if all airplanes needed three times the space. And some concourses should not handle three tiimes the amount of passengers either.

New LGA: 2021... Construction starts in a few months.

brilondon · Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12):
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.

But then you would reduce the number of options you would have when flying that route. If you need to fly to LGA in the morning but there is only one flight that is in the afternoon because only having a single flight you may loose that customer who would fly a different airline or a different mode of transport.

jetblue1965 · Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 72):
It isn't an unfair comparison because it includes BOTH LGA&JFK for DL so its pretty much apples to apples.

Exactly. Actually a pure sub-1500mi comparison of EWR to LGA is *also* false because JFK within perimeter frequently uses even smaller gauge than its LGA counterparts, so a straight up 1500mi+DEN match of EWR vs. LGA is also not apples to apples when attempting to compare %mainline of UA EWR to DL NYC.

The combined figure is 48% at UA EWR and 42-43% at DL JFK+LGA.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 71):

Any other comparison is complete BS because it is not flyable from LGA.

Using a UA mainline flight to BCN or NRT in the same comparison to a LGA perimeter operation is comparing a Menorah and a Christmas Tree. Completely irrelevant.

If you feel so strongly that UA is screwing EWR and NJ customers, then bring some statistics to the discussion. I presented my numbers, where are yours ?

Boeing717200 · Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:55 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 70):
One way to gently nudge the airlines to reduce the number of RJs at LGA would be to flatten the landing fees.

On a per pax basis, a 738/A320 is 7% cheaper than a CR9 when it comes to the landing fee. Then you have to consider that because the same gate can typically handle a CR9 or a 738, the cost per passenger per square foot is doubled for the RJ. The regional jet costs more already on every airport cost metric and the leasehold is a far higher cost than the landing fee.

Landing fees are the academics choice when it comes to all airport congestion problems, but they never step off campus to know any better. They've been peddling this nonsense for nearly 20 years.

jfklganyc · Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:54 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 75):
Exactly. Actually a pure sub-1500mi comparison of EWR to LGA is *also* false because JFK within perimeter frequently uses even smaller gauge than its LGA counterparts, so a straight up 1500mi DEN match of EWR vs. LGA is also not apples to apples when attempting to compare %mainline of UA EWR to DL NYC.

The combined figure is 48% at UA EWR and 42-43% at DL JFK LGA.

You brought JFK into the discussion. The comparison started here with another poster before you got into the discussion:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 38):

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

I responded with:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 42):
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.

You responded with:

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 43):
First, stop shouting in all caps. Second, LGA is 1500mi perimeter not 2500.

You even added this:

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 44):
And the point of discussion here is LGA so I don't see what's the point to bring up JFK.

So for the Fourth time, I will ask you...tell me the number of mainline flights UA has at EWR within 1500 miles plus DEN.

jetblue1965 · Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 77):

I'm not doing your homework. If you want to know that statistic, go count it on GDS OAG yourself.

PPVRA · Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:20 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 76):
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 70):
One way to gently nudge the airlines to reduce the number of RJs at LGA would be to flatten the landing fees.

On a per pax basis, a 738/A320 is 7% cheaper than a CR9 when it comes to the landing fee. Then you have to consider that because the same gate can typically handle a CR9 or a 738, the cost per passenger per square foot is doubled for the RJ. The regional jet costs more already on every airport cost metric and the leasehold is a far higher cost than the landing fee.

Landing fees are the academics choice when it comes to all airport congestion problems, but they never step off campus to know any better. They've been peddling this nonsense for nearly 20 years.

If the landing fee at LGA was $10,000 flat, per aircraft, there would be huge differences on the cost per pax when comparing a 767 to any RJ. The current system of landing fees does not work because its fee structure is determined based on metrics that don't really matter (in other words, it's a stupid fee that accomplishes nothing economically other than raise revenues for the airport) and the fee levels are far too low.

As to your suggestion that government-run airports with regulated fee structures and price caps are somehow a free market, just wow man. . .

[Edited 2015-12-14 10:21:58]

Boeing717200 · Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:03 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
If the landing fee at LGA was $10,000 flat, per aircraft, there would be huge differences on the cost per pax when comparing a 767 to any RJ.

Such a fee would be considered unreasonable and an arbitrary artificial barrier to entry, so it’s irrelevant.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
The current system of landing fees does not work because its fee structure is determined based on metrics that don't really matter (in other words, it's a stupid fee that accomplishes nothing economically other than raise revenues for the airport) and the fee levels are far too low.

They work just fine. The problem with LGA is the arbitrary and useless perimeter rule, not some imagined problem with rates and charges.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
As to your suggestion that government-run airports with regulated fee structures and price caps are somehow a free market, just wow man. . .

What are you even talking about? Oye. A.net.

[Edited 2015-12-14 12:40:43]

PPVRA · Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
If the landing fee at LGA was $10,000 flat, per aircraft, there would be huge differences on the cost per pax when comparing a 767 to any RJ.

Such a fee would be considered unreasonable and an arbitrary artificial barrier to entry, so it’s irrelevant.

What is reasonable? Why arbitrary? If the market for LGA flights can bear such a price, why not? Give us something we can work with.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
The current system of landing fees does not work because its fee structure is determined based on metrics that don't really matter (in other words, it's a stupid fee that accomplishes nothing economically other than raise revenues for the airport) and the fee levels are far too low.

They work just fine. The problem with LGA is the arbitrary and useless perimeter rule, not some imagined problem with rates and charges.

They obviously don't work at all. There are plenty of other airports without perimeter rules that have inefficient use of slots, despite being extremely busy.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
As to your suggestion that government-run airports with regulated fee structures and price caps are somehow a free market, just wow man. . .

What are you even talking about? Oye. A.net.

What part of my post is wrong??

Boeing717200 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:21 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 81):
They obviously don't work at all. There are plenty of other airports without perimeter rules that have inefficient use of slots, despite being extremely busy.

What part of "it's the perimeter rule" is the problem do you not understand? It arbitrarily forces an inefficient use of the facility because you can only send 150+ seat jets to so many places within said perimeter. You can try and price out an RJ all you want, but that's all you price out. It does nothing to make more efficient use of the scarce resource by getting people to places beyond the perimeter without adding capacity to go between markets, which incidentally creates innefiiencies at the go between facility. But yeah, it's rates and charges. Give me a break.

wjcandee · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:49 am

Quoting bkflyguy (Reply 9):
If only WN and B6 had more slots so they could add more flights to Florida.

Exactly. The airlines put the equipment and routes on that will make them money. So what if a lot of those flights are on RJs? One reason Congress expanded slots at LGA was to allow smaller cities a certain level of business viability by having a nonstop to New York. Which means RJs. The carriers get a pretty penny for the business fares on these flights (one reason they have two-class cabins); last minute can be expensive. And they make money.

And remember that some of us here sometimes have to go to godforsaken places that aren't Miami, San Francisco, LA, or Chicago. And we would prefer not to have to connect through ATL to do so, thank you very much. Bad enough to have to go to these awful places. When we finally get to leave, we don't want to spend any more time than necessary coming home to DeBlasio's Paradise. In fact, we will pay not to have to do that. Which is one reason those flights are there.

By what standard does one feel entitled to say that it's "wasteful" to serve smaller markets in O/D pairs from NYC? If LGA isn't serving every gate, every flight with the biggest aircraft that can fit in there (764?), only someone who thinks they have a right to create social order would call that "wasteful".

Wanna see big planes? Go to JFK or --- Ick...Jersey! --- EWR.

commavia · Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:22 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 83):
By what standard does one feel entitled to say that it's "wasteful" to serve smaller markets in O/D pairs from NYC? If LGA isn't serving every gate, every flight with the biggest aircraft that can fit in there (764?), only someone who thinks they have a right to create social order would call that "wasteful".

Exactly.

So many of these arguments about the apparent need to manipulate the utilization of the slots to something supposedly more "socially optimal" seem to be predicated on the presumptions that (1) all customers always value lower fares more than anything else, and thus, following on (1), that (2) more flights by JetBlue and Southwest are always preferable to more flights by a network airline. Neither presumption is true.

There are markets that can be served, and competition provided, by network airlines that JetBlue, Southwest and other similar carriers cannot and will not serve, so while there is nothing wrong with more flights by JetBlue or Southwest, there's also not necessarily anything wrong with more flights by AA, Delta or United with regional jets.

jetblue1965 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:25 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 84):

So many of these arguments about the apparent need to manipulate the utilization of the slots to something supposedly more "socially optimal" seem to be predicated on the presumptions that (1) all customers always value lower fares more than anything else, and thus, following on (1), that (2) more flights by JetBlue and Southwest are always preferable to more flights by a network airline. Neither presumption is true.

There are markets that can be served, and competition provided, by network airlines that JetBlue, Southwest and other similar carriers cannot and will not serve, so while there is nothing wrong with more flights by JetBlue or Southwest, there's also not necessarily anything wrong with more flights by AA, Delta or United with regional jets.

When PMUS was doing 20x PHL-LGA, a land distance of merely 1:15 by Amtrak Acela, would you say that was actually delivering value and profits, or a straight up exercise of slot squatting ?

commavia · Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:30 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 85):
would you say that was actually delivering value and profits

I'm quite sure that USAirways would have said it was delivering value and profits - funneling thousands of passengers into a USAirways megahub for connections elsewhere when USAirways was unable, owing to competitive and market dynamics, to support nonstop flights from LGA overflying the PHL hub.

Nonetheless, the whole high-frequency LGA-PHL red herring is just that - oft-repeated but, in my view, basically meaningless as it didn't last long and has promptly gone away now that said competitive and market dynamics have changed.

jetblue1965 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 86):

I'm quite sure that USAirways would have said it was delivering value and profits - funneling thousands of passengers into a USAirways megahub for connections elsewhere when USAirways was unable, owing to competitive and market dynamics, to support nonstop flights from LGA overflying the PHL hub.

Nonetheless, the whole high-frequency LGA-PHL red herring is just that - oft-repeated but, in my view, basically meaningless as it didn't last long and has promptly gone away now that said competitive and market dynamics have changed.

Really ? You need 20x E-jets just to funnel those pax? Because a more sensible 15x or even 12x mainline would send PMUS into a downward spiral ? It didn't matter how short lived such a strategy was. The fact that it was even deployed makes one question how legit is all the slot usage, at any time.

I really don't care what the official corporate spin is for this, which we all know is all hype and marketing and sugar coated, designed for only the most naive to believe. I'm asking your personal opinion - how do you draw the line for slot squatting ?

commavia · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:16 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 87):
Really ?

Yes, really.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 87):
Because a more sensible 15x or even 12x mainline would send PMUS into a downward spiral ?

"More sensible" according to some, but not everyone.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 87):
It didn't matter how short lived such a strategy was. The fact that it was even deployed makes one question how legit is all the slot usage, at any time.

Doesn't lead me to question anything. USAirways used the slots to their maximum possible value at the time - for USAirways - until they had a different opportunity to use them to even greater value when the dynamics changed. That's completely fine by me.

But again, it all depends on each person's individual perspective.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 87):
I'm asking your personal opinion - how do you draw the line for slot squatting ?

Well if you want my personal opinion, the "line" should be drawn at not using the slots at all and beyond that leaving airlines alone. There should be minimum-utilization requirements that a slot has to be used x% of the time, and beyond that, airlines should be able to use their slots however they see fit.

But that's my opinion. Others clearly have other opinions. It's obviously not my decision to make, so my opinion doesn't matter, anyway.

PPVRA · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:20 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 82):
What part of "it's the perimeter rule" is the problem do you not understand?

What part of "LGA is not the only airport with an RJ problem and others do not have perimeter rules" do you not understand? That hard to grasp?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 82):
It arbitrarily forces an inefficient use of the facility because you can only send 150+ seat jets to so many places within said perimeter. You can try and price out an RJ all you want, but that's all you price out. It does nothing to make more efficient use of the scarce resource by getting people to places beyond the perimeter without adding capacity to go between markets, which incidentally creates innefiiencies at the go between facility. But yeah, it's rates and charges. Give me a break.

I agree the perimeter rule should go, but there are also PLENTY of possible destinations within 1500SM of that airport. Most of the lower 48 are in this region. Heck, even Puerto Rico is within that perimeter.

The perimeter rule should go so the airport's value can be utilized to the max, but if it doesn't, it absolutely does NOT mean it is doomed to be RJ central.

At a flat $10,000 landing fee, ANY aircraft with only 50 passengers would pay $200 per pax. Any aircraft with 200 passengers would pay $50 per pax. This flat fee can fluctuate based on peak hour versus non-peak hours. Sane traffic and capacity management introduced by one fee.

[Edited 2015-12-15 07:23:02]

jetblue1965 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:40 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 88):

Well if you want my personal opinion, the "line" should be drawn at not using the slots at all and beyond that leaving airlines alone. There should be minimum-utilization requirements that a slot has to be used x% of the time, and beyond that, airlines should be able to use their slots however they see fit.

How about this - if AA desperately wants to expand at LGA but is prevented from doing so because some other incumbent runs 50x daily ERJs on one route just to slot squat, or 100x ... Or what if we find out that particularly route runs at 20% load factor and -50% margins.

Then what would you say ?

I find it somewhat amusing you're vehemently against WN having all the gates (read : constrained public resource) at DAL, but completely cool with AA having all the slots at DCA and LGA.

commavia · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:44 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 90):
How about this - if AA desperately wants to expand at LGA but is prevented from doing so because some other incumbent runs 50x daily ERJs on one route just to slot squat, or 100x ... Or what if we find out that particularly route runs at 20% load factor and -50% margins.

Then what would you say ?

I'd say if AA wants to expand so "desperately," then it should find the proverbial briefcase of cash to go lay on some other airline's board room table to buy the slots. Otherwise - tough. If AA wants more access at a constrained-access airport, they should have to pay for it, just as should JetBlue, Southwest or any other airline. No airline has any divine right to slots just because they "desperately" want to grow.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 90):
I find it somewhat amusing you're vehemently against WN having all the gates (read : constrained public resource) at DAL, but completely cool with AA having all the slots at DCA and LGA.

Don't put words in my mouth.

First off, I'm not "vehemently against" Southwest having "all the gates" at DAL (despite the fact that they do not now, nor will they likely ever, have "all" the gates at DAL). Rather, my opinion is that DAL should not be open to scheduled commercial airline service in the first place. But that's a totally different discussion entirely unrelated to this. Secondly, AA does not now, nor will it ever, have anywhere close to "all the slots at DCA and LGA" - I'm not suggesting nor supporting that, and nor is anybody else. AA has ~50% market share at DCA and ~35% at LGA - that's hardly "all" of anything.

But by all means let's not let facts get in the way of the story line we're pushing. sarcastic

[Edited 2015-12-15 07:46:12]

jetblue1965 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 91):

I'd say if AA wants to expand so "desperately," then it should fine the briefcase of cash to go lay on some other airline's proverbial board room table to buy the slots. Otherwise - tough. If AA wants more access at a constrained-access airport, they should have to pay for it, just as should JetBlue, Southwest or any other airline. No airline has any divine right to slots just because they "desperately" want to grow.

Right, because the world is so straight forward that people will definitely sell. Try bringing the cash to BA and see if they'll ever sell you a single prime time LHR slot, at any price.

Quoting commavia (Reply 91):

First off, I'm not "vehemently against" Southwest having "all the gates" at DAL (despite the fact that they do not now, nor will they likely ever, have "all" the gates at DAL). Rather, my opinion is that DAL should not be open to scheduled commercial airline service in the first place.

That's just masquerading it. You don't like the existence of DAL because it has a convenience advantage over DFW of your preferred carrier, of which another airline - WN - is taking full advantage of.

Ironic you don't have the same opinion about HOU or MDW, but just for DAL.

Flighty · Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:11 pm

Quoting BooDog (Reply 25):
Is this true?

Completely untrue. LGA could serve many more passengers. I have said 30% more which is a half educated guesstimate.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 83):
what standard does one feel entitled to say that it's "wasteful" to serve smaller markets in O/D pairs from NYC? If LGA isn't serving every gate, every flight with the biggest aircraft that can fit in there (764?), only someone who thinks they have a right to create social order would call that "wasteful".

Because the government is dictating that certain people don't even have the right to land there (they don't have the right "papers," which can't even be bought from the government), and those who do, can't navigate where they want to in the country. These regulations lead to a precious resource going fallow. And, the traffic is so badly managed that its gridlock can cascade through the US.

RJs carrying a couple dozen passengers, in defiance of the basic market economy, are an insult to the generally difficult air transportation situation in NY. And also to the millions of people who suffer from air travel delays, which mainly emanate from the failure to manage capacity. If we have a slot regime, the least they could do is slot the facility to run properly. They failed to even do that.

[Edited 2015-12-15 08:15:49]

[Edited 2015-12-15 09:11:49]

commavia · Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:43 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 92):
Right, because the world is so straight forward that people will definitely sell. Try bringing the cash to BA and see if they'll ever sell you a single prime time LHR slot, at any price.

For the right price, somebody will sell. This has been proven time and time again.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 92):
You don't like the existence of DAL because it has a convenience advantage over DFW of your preferred carrier, of which another airline - WN - is taking full advantage of.

Once again - don't put words in my mouth.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 92):
Ironic you don't have the same opinion about HOU or MDW, but just for DAL.

Once again - don't put words in my mouth about what opinion I do or don't hold regarding HOU or MDW.

And in any event, HOU and MDW are entirely different situations with different market dynamics to DAL, which are all entirely different to LGA, which is to say that all of this is basically an ancillary sideshow to what this conversation is really about, which is LGA.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 93):
RJs carrying a couple dozen passengers, in defiance of the basic market economy, are an insult to the generally difficult air transportation situation in NY and also to the millions of people who suffer from air travel delays, which mainly emanate from the failure to manage capacity. If we have a slot regime, the least they could do is slot the facility to run properly.

But, as already said, this is all predicated on the presumption that "slot[ting] the facility to run properly" constitutes pushing the maximum number of passengers through said facility, and that, as such, a slot being used by "RJs carrying a couple dozen passengers" is somehow "in defiance of the basic market economy."

Once again - not everybody thinks that way, not everyone has the goal of maximizing passenger count at the airport, and not everybody believes that RJs are somehow "in defiance of the basic market economy."

[Edited 2015-12-15 08:49:18]

PPVRA · Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:44 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 83):
By what standard does one feel entitled to say that it's "wasteful" to serve smaller markets in O/D pairs from NYC? If LGA isn't serving every gate, every flight with the biggest aircraft that can fit in there (764?), only someone who thinks they have a right to create social order would call that "wasteful".

Other way around, buddy. It is those who support the perimeter rule who are trying to manipulate natural social order by introducing an artificial limitation.

Boeing717200 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 89):
What part of "LGA is not the only airport with an RJ problem and others do not have perimeter rules" do you not understand? That hard to grasp?

Cause....Post 18...

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.

Post 37...

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 37):
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.

Post 41...

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 41):
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.

Read the thread man.

[Edited 2015-12-15 09:04:28]

wjcandee · Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 87):
You need 20x E-jets just to funnel those pax?

YEAH. Because more frequency means shorter connection times which means more pax choosing that option. And if it worked for them, it worked. Who are you to say what any "needs"? Virtually NOBODY is going to take Acela to Philly and then get on a connecting flight. Acela is expensive. You would have to really, really want to fly USAirways to do that, because you likely would spend more $$ than you would just flying nonstop from NYC.

wjcandee · Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:20 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 93):
These regulations lead to a precious resource going fallow.

Oh, Lord. Air is a "precious resource". Water is a precious resource.

Slots at LGA are not.

Matt6461 · Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:49 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Such a fee would be considered unreasonable and an arbitrary artificial barrier to entry

States have antitrust immunity so terms like "unreasonable restraint of trade" and "barriers to entry" are actually irrelevant.

In any event, a barrier to entry is something that would prevent competition. To make your argument even theoretically coherent, you'd have to show that higher fees at LGA would prevent competition for LGA - i.e. prevent the building of further airport capacity in NYC.

Quoting commavia (Reply 88):
USAirways used the slots to their maximum possible value at the time - for USAirways - until they had a different opportunity to use them to even greater value when the dynamics changed.

I've heard it said numerous times that the subjectively genuine reason for certain routes out of NYC is slot-sitting. It's hard to say in any particular case whether narrow profit maximization of slot-sitting is the rationale.

Quoting commavia (Reply 91):
I'd say if AA wants to expand so "desperately," then it should find the proverbial briefcase of cash to go lay on some other airline's board room table to buy the slots. Otherwise - tough.

This assumes we have a functioning market in slots - don't think that's true for many reasons. Economists wouldn't be proposing slot auctions, for example, if we had a functioning market. I'm inclined to defer to those economists.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net