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.
imp:
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.
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.
imp: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.
