Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

FAA/Port of NY proposes elimination of RJ at LGA

  • Thread starter Thread starter lowecur
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 8

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
The FAA proposal wants to cap all flts with a 105-122 seat minimum, thus effectively eliminating the RJ. The Port of NY proposal would be gate specific, allowing some gates to remain RJ based on their ability to handle the flow of people. In either case it would force the legacys to use larger a/c or face losing their gate lease. It's also a double edge sword as fewer flts per gate would also force them to give up the gate to other carriers that could offer more frequency.

You think maybe Neeleman is behind this? I think so. Watch how fast the 190 capacity grows to 105 seats if this passes. AirTran likes it too. If this catches on, ORD and JFK could be next.

:pimp:​

FAA thinks bigger jets might help ease congestion at LaGuardia

1/6/2007, 12:29 p.m. ET By DAVID B. CARUSO

The Associated Press NEW YORK (AP) — Jet airplanes may be able to defy gravity, but even the most powerful craft can't escape the cruel physics that govern LaGuardia Airport.

Squeezed onto a peninsula at the edge of Queens, the 67-year-old airport has long been among the most congested and constrained in the country. In ideal weather, its two 7,000-foot runways can handle a maximum of around 75 planes an hour, or about one every 48 seconds, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

That may sound like plenty, but it doesn't come close to meeting demand, and authorities say there is little hope of improvement. LaGuardia is out of space, making expansion impossible.

Still, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey believes it may be possible to move an additional 8 million passengers a year through the airport, and the FAA is considering a range of new regulations aimed at using every ounce of its capacity.

The secret, both agencies say, is pressuring airlines to fly bigger planes.
In recent years, the aircraft using LaGuardia have been shrinking, even as demand for seats has increased.

On one typical day in early October, some 600 of the airport's 1,194 scheduled flights were on aircraft with fewer than 70 seats, the Port Authority said. Overall, the average number of seats per departure has fallen from nearly 110 in 2000 to about 97 last year.

Airlines say the change benefited travelers by allowing carriers to fly popular routes several times a day, without having to fly part-empty. But it has also frustrated aviation officials, who would rather see passengers combined onto fewer flights.

"We need to move to larger aircraft," said Port Authority spokesman Pasquale DiFulco. "Customers want more choice of flights ... and that's what airlines provide. But there is no question that, to some extent, that stands in the way of our desire to meet increased demand."

Since the summer, the FAA and Port Authority have been discussing competing proposals that would each make LaGuardia the first U.S. airport to threaten airlines with revocation of precious flight slots if they don't fly bigger jets.

The FAA's plan would require most airlines to meet an average aircraft-size target, probably of between 105 and 122 seats per flight. The Port Authority favors setting minimum plane sizes on a gate-by-gate basis, based on how many passengers each can handle. Airlines that persist in flying smaller planes into gates capable of receiving bigger craft could lose their lease.

Both plans have run into opposition. The Air Transport Association, which represents the major U.S. airlines, formally objected to the FAA's proposal this month, calling it "governmental micromanagement." "This is a market-driven economy, and the market should dictate the size and frequency of planes that a carrier can operate," said association spokesman David Castelveter.

He warned that service to smaller destinations from LaGuardia could be compromised if the airlines are forced to fly bigger planes. Simultaneously, the FAA has proposed tackling the sticky issue of encouraging more competition for scarce LaGuardia flight slots. For nearly four decades, flights at the airport were controlled by a rationing system that limited congestion, but also made it nearly impossible for new air carriers to get access to the gates.

Congress decided in the spring of 2000 to encourage competition by decreeing that the old rationing system for LaGuardia and other high-density airports would expire by 2007. It also ordered transportation officials to immediately begin issuing new flight slots to airlines that had been shut out.
The result was temporary chaos. Flights into LaGuardia surged and it quickly became overwhelmed. The average delay time for arrivals skyrocketed 144 percent.

Worse yet, the backups began rippling across the country. By September of that year, gridlock at LaGuardia was responsible for 25 percent of all flight delays nationwide. Alarmed, the FAA intervened. Just months after the experiment began, it restored a cap on flights and began distributing the few available new slots by lottery.

Now, the agency has proposed a new system that would continue capping flights at about 75 per hour, but encourage competition by yanking 10 percent of the available slots each year from incumbent airlines and opening them up to new bidders.

The proposal has been assailed by some airlines, who say the constant threat of losing their slots will make investing in the airport needlessly risky, but applauded by other carriers who have been fighting to expand in the New York market."

This is the first opportunity we've seen for increased competition at LaGuardia," said Ed Faberman, spokesman for Orlando-based AirTran. "Obviously the larger carriers are trying to do everything they can to try and put this on the shelf."

The Port Authority has expressed some concern about the proposal, warning in its formal comments to the FAA that such a large turnover of gates could cause "unnecessarily roiling" for the airlines "without any commensurate benefit."

Interested parties have weighed in from across the country, including business groups worried that aircraft size rules might lead to fewer flights to their local airport. New York City officials praised the FAA's goals, but said the new rules were too complicated and endorsed the Port Authority's "gate management" approach.

In the meantime, the old slot rationing system expired on schedule on Jan. 1.
FAA officials temporarily put in place a new set of operating rules that will extend the status quo through the summer. The agency hopes to have a final solution in place by then.
 
This was inevitable given the limited space....bigger planes = more people moved per T/O or landing
 
So will the A380 be coming to LGA, if it gets certified? :rolleyes:
 
Maybe RJDC will sue the port authority of New York for standing in the way of their vast career potential. <dripping with sarcasm>
 
the way i read that it says that the avg # of seats an airline's fleet must have to operate in LGA is at least 105 seats, not each airplane to have 105 seats.
 
the way i read that it says that the avg # of seats an airline's fleet must have to operate in LGA is at least 105 seats, not each airplane to have 105 seats.

Delta could be in a world of hurt... ;) TC
 
The problem with this is that you just cant fill a 737 or an 80 from LGA to (insert some small city) unless you only do 1/day and that sucks for getting people where they want to go.
 
I figured I'd find Neeleman's name if I looked long enough.

:pimp:​


No Surprise Here: Airlines Object To LaGuardia Limits
Sun, 07 Jan '07
Minimum Seat-Count Rule Finding Few Friends

The FAA is making no friends with its plans to reorganize what can politely be called "congested" LaGuardia Airport.

The most recent objection to the FAA's proposal to reallocate flights based on past gate usage came from the Air Transport Association in a formal objection filed Wednesday. The trade group includes American, Continental, Delta, United, and other established carriers.

The agency is seeking to ensure that LaGuardia's limited gate space is used to its full potential; airlines flying smaller jets risk losing flight slots to airlines willing to fly wider-bodied jets carrying more passengers, said NewYorkBusiness.com. The agency is seeking to require an average plane size of 105 - 122 seats for all LaGuardia gates; many of the major airlines' flights use small jets.

"The proposed rule represents governmental micromanagement and interference... not seen since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978," said the Air Transport Association.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has also chimed in on the plan, objecting strongly to what it perceives as FAA interference in airport ground operations. The Port Authority has proposed its own airport reforms that include requiring airlines to use their gates at 80 percent capacity for the year.

Not everyone is unhappy with the FAA proposal, however. Low cost carriers, such as Southwest and JetBlue, would gain from implementation of the FAA proposal; JetBlue Chief Executive David Neeleman has openly expressed his support of most aspects of the FAA plan.

The FAA proposal to establish new flight rules came following last summer's recovery in air travel that brought LaGuardia's traffic closer to peak levels not seen since the summer of 2000. At that time, the airport accounted for 25 percent of all flight delays nationwide. The FAA released its initial plan in August and interested parties had until year-end to file public comments.
 
The problem with this is that you just cant fill a 737 or an 80 from LGA to (insert some small city) unless you only do 1/day and that sucks for getting people where they want to go.


Well said...look at all the cities that US Air serves with the tprops. These markets would surely be dropped because no one is going to fly a 70 or 90 seater between lga and ithaca several times a day. People complain now about waiting due to congestion, but wait till they can only fly in and out of the airport once a day because of capping restrictions. People are going to complain about things any which way the FAA decides to go.
 
the way i read that it says that the avg # of seats an airline's fleet must have to operate in LGA is at least 105 seats, not each airplane to have 105 seats.
Good point. I guess a few RJs and 190s could stay put if the average number of seats throughout the day remains between those numbers.

Anyway you look at it, this would certainly free up some gates for B6 and other LCCs looking to move in. US Air is the only airline still flying props in, so they would definitely have to change. 9 or 10 of those 30 seat a/c per day from upstate is ridiculous.

My guess is the FAA will go along with the Port Authority first to see how that works out. If not, the more drastic action might have to take place.
This will definitely hurt some of the regionals as the legacy's will have to put larger a/c in place.

:pimp:​
 
Oh what a concept:rolleyes:. As far as I'm concerned you can take the flying turd and put them all in Oklahoma or Kansas. Keep it all mainline and put all the regional guys on mainline seniority list and put on the proper airplane for the proper route. Wait a minute.... if this did happen... what the heck would we all fight about? aaaahhh it'll never happen.....
 
I hope this happens, I hate riding on RJs. I hate holding short on my way to work for 15 RJs to take off.
 
You think maybe Neeleman is behind this? I think so. Watch how fast the 190 capacity grows to 105 seats if this passes.


So let me get this straight: JB is removing a row of seats from the Airbus so they can eliminate a flight attendant. So now they're going to add 5 seat to the Embraer, thus requiring them to add a flight attendant?

That doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
 
[/color]
So let me get this straight: JB is removing a row of seats from the Airbus so they can eliminate a flight attendant. So now they're going to add 5 seat to the Embraer, thus requiring them to add a flight attendant?

That doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
I think you're right, but until they sift through all the details, it looks like the RJ will still have a life at LGA.....albeit a much smaller one.

The gate utilization proposal by the Port based on the ability to handle a certain number of pax per gate makes the most sense, as it's specific. The FAA sounds like they are just increasing the averages from 97 to between 105-122 and will let each carrier decide how they want to handle it. Some of that could be adjusted upward by bringing back more 767s on the property ala the old DL (oh, I forgot those are now used int'l).

In either case it's a boon for the LCC's.

:pimp:​
 

Latest resources

Back
Top