| Quoting Mir (Reply 14): Because most of the time they're not all two hours late. Simple as that. |
I think this is the correct answer. Where is the evidence that MOST of these frequency flights are delayed? It's just simply not the case.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
OK, this I just a tiny sample: In the last 1 1/2 years I flew 8 times out of DC area airports ( mostly to ATL,
ABQ, IAH, MIA etc.... not to NY).
From BWI: two on time
From IAD: one 2hrs late, the other canceled
From DCA: one on time, three between 2 and 3 hours late.
Maybe I just have bad luck. Don't book the same flight as me!
ABQ, IAH, MIA etc.... not to NY).
From BWI: two on time
From IAD: one 2hrs late, the other canceled
From DCA: one on time, three between 2 and 3 hours late.
Maybe I just have bad luck. Don't book the same flight as me!
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
This is what we like to call anecdata...
There are stats. LGA, which is probably the worst airport in America as far as ontime performance, runs in the mid 70%s.
There are stats. LGA, which is probably the worst airport in America as far as ontime performance, runs in the mid 70%s.
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting jambrain (Reply 4): Why don't ATC apply a congestion charge per flight until a widebody flight is significantly cheaper per seat and thus average flight size would rise! |
Not a good idea to have the government meddling more than they already do.
| Quoting par13del (Reply 21): if you eliminate competition you would allow the surviving carrier to meet the demand by using a larger a/c, this will eliminate congestion, collect the same amount in taxes since the larger heavier a/c will pay roughly the same amount in taxes. Now the elephant in the room is the un-intended consequence, which is that the fares will have to be regulated since UA will now be free to charge whatever they want to since the pax will have no choice. |
You've just described EWR!
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 44): 1. The landing fees at airports should be a fixed fee per plane/ per flight - that's it. Not per weight, not per passenger. A fee per plane/ flight is actually quite fair - as it is the same work for the control tower, radar, ground control etc.. whether he plane is large or small. Yes, the separation between planes may be larger, with "heavies", but otherwise it's the same cost, regardless of plane size. |
This could easily decimate traffic from smaller towns into slot controlled airports like LGA and DCA. Some routes simply don't support a larger plane.
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 44): 2. No reason not to have an across-the-board slot reduction at these over burdened airports. Across the board, fair for all. The result would be great: Less congestion, less noise, less risk for accidents, less delays even! Since - as many here mention - the airports are public property and not the private property of airlines ... this could easily be accomplished..... it just takes some guts .... which of course is lacking with most officials. |
While I agree that the general concept of using larger planes (with less frequency) could improve ATC operations, not every airline that operates at these airports has larger aircraft in their fleets. WN, B6, NK. No widebodies.
Also, as an NYC based flyer, competition would be down and my prices would rise. Why? Because airlines know they can extract higher prices when they restrict capacity. So as the slots are removed (which the airlines would fight initially of course) you won't necessarily see the required increase in gauge to balance capacity. I'll pass on the higher prices; the delays that occur here are not a terrible problem for me. (I would *never* connect at LGA if I didn't live here, but it's fine for O&D.)
How about we upgrade and improve our ATC systems instead of removing customer options?
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
Some examples:
Tokyo-Osaka: a flight almost every 15 minutes, 767, 777, 787.. and similar.
Beijing-Shanghai: a flight every 15 minutes, A330, 777, 747, plus the odd 737.
Imagine an "Embraer testing ground" here........LOL.
Tokyo-Osaka: a flight almost every 15 minutes, 767, 777, 787.. and similar.
Beijing-Shanghai: a flight every 15 minutes, A330, 777, 747, plus the odd 737.
Imagine an "Embraer testing ground" here........LOL.
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 55): Some examples: Tokyo-Osaka: a flight almost every 15 minutes, 767, 777, 787.. and similar. Beijing-Shanghai: a flight every 15 minutes, A330, 777, 747, plus the odd 737. Imagine an "Embraer testing ground" here........LOL. |
3 of those 4 cities (the cities themselves) have a bigger population than NYC, the US's biggest city. The Tokyo metro area population (the whole metro area, not just the city) is nearly 2X the NYC metro area population, 6X Washington metro, 6X Philadelphia metro, 7-8X Boston metro. Beijing and Shanghai metro areas are both bigger than NYC metro area population. Osaka metro area population is almost as big as NYC. So the examples you cite are the equivalent of the US having two major metro areas the size of NYC (or bigger), which we simply don't. (The closest we have in the US is NYC - LAX, which does have a lot of service frequency and some widebody service, but even LAX metro is smaller by 1/3 than Osaka metro, and is less than 1/3 the population of the Tokyo metro area).
And many of those larger plane types couldn't even operate at LGA and DCA, for example, due to runway length.
If the market supported using larger planes, operators would use larger planes. But I don't see how running a 767 every 15 minutes on LGA-DCA (for example) instead of 717 or E190 (for example) would help the congestion concern you seek to alleviate?
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
To ty97: That was a whirlwind of sizes of metropolitan areas! I don't see what the relevance is.
Did you forget that many more people in Japan and in China take the high speed trains? Many more than take the flights?
Give me the statistics for Amtrak compared to the high speed rail in Japan and China, and then you'll see that in the US
a much larger percentage is flying. But you knew that already - you just wanted to argue against my post.
Then, of course, you misunderstood my entire argument. I am not talking about replacing the every 15 minutes 737
with an every 15 minutes 767. I am arguing replacing the every 15 minutes 737 with an every 30 minutes 767.
See the difference?
Runway length is no problem, there have been DC10's scheduled routinely at LGA, and DCA is fine with 767's.
Vietnam Air just visited DCA and showed off their new 787 there.
Did you forget that many more people in Japan and in China take the high speed trains? Many more than take the flights?
Give me the statistics for Amtrak compared to the high speed rail in Japan and China, and then you'll see that in the US
a much larger percentage is flying. But you knew that already - you just wanted to argue against my post.
Then, of course, you misunderstood my entire argument. I am not talking about replacing the every 15 minutes 737
with an every 15 minutes 767. I am arguing replacing the every 15 minutes 737 with an every 30 minutes 767.
See the difference?
Runway length is no problem, there have been DC10's scheduled routinely at LGA, and DCA is fine with 767's.
Vietnam Air just visited DCA and showed off their new 787 there.
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 57): To ty97: That was a whirlwind of sizes of metropolitan areas! I don't see what the relevance is. |
The relevance is the number of people traveling in the market (by any means) obviously. When you a metro of 37 million people and a metro of 19 million people (in the case of Tokyo-Osaka) there will be a lot more travelers Thank in the between the much smaller metros of NYC and DC. Just like the size of the markets in Tulsa and El Paso matter for this air travel, we can't ignore the relative size of the markets to which you are drawing comparisons.
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 57): Did you forget that many more people in Japan and in China take the high speed trains? Many more than take the flights? Give me the statistics for Amtrak compared to the high speed rail in Japan and China, and then you'll see that in the US a much larger percentage is flying. But you knew that already - you just wanted to argue against my post. |
It's not my job to bring links to support your argument. If you want to provide sources to demonstrate a point about the NE corridor planes/train/bus breakdown vs the Japan plane/bullet train breakdown, you can bring those sources and make that argument.
I am not disagreeing with you just for the sake of disagreeing (there is far too much of that on the Internet as it is). I think while your aim is well intended (reduce delays in NE corridor air travel) your approach and portions of the argument to support that approach are flawed. That's not personal, we just have different opinions (and forums like this allow us to flesh out and debate those opinions)
| Quoting Skisandy (Reply 57): Runway length is no problem, there have been DC10's scheduled routinely at LGA, and DCA is fine with 767's. Vietnam Air just visited DCA and showed off their new 787 there. |
Of course. I said that *some* of the types you referenced could not operate at those airports, not all of them.
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting ty97 (Reply 56): If the market supported using larger planes, operators would use larger planes |
Actually, they wouldn't because they can't. They don't have the widebodies at all (F9, WN, NK, B6) or they don't have the widebodies to remove from international routes to devote to domestic ops (AA, UA, DL).
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting N62NA (Reply 59): Actually, they wouldn't because they can't. They don't have the widebodies at all (F9, WN, NK, B6) or they don't have the widebodies to remove from international routes to devote to domestic ops (AA, UA, DL). |
If the market supported it, they'd just buy (more) widebody planes.
-
- 32andBelow
- Posts: 5087
- Joined:
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
Its easier to move capacity up and down with frequency on narrow body jets.
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47): Quoting PPVRA (Reply 46): I don't know why more pilots don't support this. It would decrease regional airline flying and beef up mainline flying. Because it would likely mean an end to GA in this country, something that we do very well here. Airport landing fees would kill the vast small airport structure that this country has built up and keeps, in the public interest. |
Not much GA flying into JFK, EWR, LGA, ORD, etc. These major airports have minimal GA other than a few really expensive private jets who could easily afford high landing fees.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
RE: Why Is Frequency Great When All Are 2 Hours Late?
| Quoting N62NA (Reply 61): It's not like you can just go down to Walmart and come back with a new widebody plane later in the day. |
Sure, no one said they needed to instantly get them on hand. But if they needed widebody planes, there's no reason why they couldn't move towards that, even if they historically operated a single type narrow body fleet.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 737MAX7, AA 777, adipasqu, ah414211, astuteman, B595, BENAir01, BTV290, calstanford, CONTACREW, flyCMH, GBNLY, GeneW, Ishrion, jamesontheroad, jbmitt, Jetty, jmertic, kaneporta1, kavok, lasmike, lightsaber, PHLspecial, piperwarrior, qf789, RedTailDTW, trex8, trexel94, VirginFlyer, wedgetail737, Wneast, ytib and 242 guests