FAA/Port of NY proposes elimination of RJ at LGA

[lowecur]

I figured I'd find Neeleman's name if I looked long enough.

imp:​

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.

 

[Quack]

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.

 

[lowecur]

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.

imp:​

 

[Networ-King]

Oh what a concept. 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.....

 

[landlover]

I hope this happens, I hate riding on RJs. I hate holding short on my way to work for 15 RJs to take off.

 

[CA1900]

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.

 

[lowecur]

[/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.

imp:​