No more LGA for Regionals?

[ASARJMan]

GA and Regionals Affected by La Guardia Plan [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]General aviation operators at New York La Guardia Airport who are waiting eagerly for the expiration next January 1 of the reservation and slot program under the high-density rule shouldn’t hold their breath. On Tuesday the FAA issued a proposal that would continue the slot-reservation system for general aviation operations (six slots are available per day between 6:30 a.m. and 10 p.m.). Also under the proposal an airline’s annual “average seat size” would have to meet or exceed the airport-wide target of between 105 and 122 seats at La Guardia or the FAA would withdraw operating authorization from the carrier. The proposal would continue to limit the number of scheduled flights to 75 per hour. According to the FAA, the proposed rule would allow “up to four million more people a year to fly into and out of La Guardia without increasing delays.” Comments are due by October 30.[/FONT]

 

[BoilerUP]

As far as I am concerned, mainline can have it.

LGA sucks.

 

[goahead]

I agree it's great for overblock and the view but that's it.....

 

[Jbitzer]

uh so 737s to MVY?

 

[saab fixr]

La garbage suxs anyway !!

 

[PropPiedmont]

That's why US Air had Republic go and order those 30 E-175s. I'm sure you'll be seeing them in LGA next year.

 

[John Pennekamp]

uh so 737s to MVY?

Don't need to go from La Gahbage, can go from JFK.

 

[The Drizzle]

I <3 LGA

now philly could sink into the delaware river and i wouldn't care one bit

 

[Hutchman]

It's "Average" seat cap. United and American fly plenty of 757's in there. That leaves plenty of room for 50/70/90 seaters. It might cut into the smaller turbo props a bit though.

 

[BoilerUP]

philly could sink into the delaware river and i wouldn't care one bit

Seconded.

 

[The Drizzle]

It's "Average" seat cap. United and American fly plenty of 757's in there. That leaves plenty of room for 50/70/90 seaters. It might cut into the smaller turbo props a bit though.

i dunno about the props, i've never seen them as a problem, ATC can fit those colgan cowboys in any tight spot they need, and all of em can go top speed and come to a crash stop in a 1/4mi. before the birth of the RJ LGA was teeming with turbo props

 

[Hutchman]

i dunno about the props, i've never seen them as a problem, ATC can fit those colgan cowboys in any tight spot they need, and all of em can go top speed and come to a crash stop in a 1/4mi. before the birth of the RJ LGA was teeming with turbo props

Remember, the government is involved so don't expect a rational thought process.

 

[vtchaz]

Yee Haw!

i dunno about the props, i've never seen them as a problem, ATC can fit those colgan cowboys in any tight spot they need, and all of em can go top speed and come to a crash stop in a 1/4mi. before the birth of the RJ LGA was teeming with turbo props

That's what makes flying a turboprop worth it...Expressway Visuals and 250 inside the maker to runway 22!!

 

[The Drizzle]

Remember, the government is involved so don't expect a rational thought process.

how quickly i forget

 

[Gofish]

Seconded.

Thirded

 

[Mr Wu]

LGA isn't that bad except for the clusterfuq getting a gate after clearing the runway. The controllers in BOS should be sent there for a quarter to learn how to do simultaneous intersecting rumway operations, those guys suck when they have to do this.

 

[vtchaz]

Read the proposal

If you read the proposal it is clear that smaller aircraft (50 seats and less) are the priamry focus. More specifically however, they are intent on reducing these aircraft being flown to medium and large hub cities. They don't want hourly flights to these large hubs and cities flown by small aircraft. Instead they want flights to larger destinations to be condensed into less frequent, larger aircraft.

Most importantly there is a grandfather provision which allows all carriers with landing slots at LGA to continue to operate for a period of time, as is. This will be based on October 2006 schedules and how long they have been operating at LGA. None of them will expire before 2010, at the earliest.

It's hard to say how this will all play out, but in my opinion it will probably end up affecting RJ schedules to those "medium and large" cities more than it will the Pidemont or Colgan flights as the FAA is definitely concerned with preserving service to the smaller markets.

It may be a mute point anyway, as the carriers have definitley made moves towards using 50-seat aircraft less anyway.

 

[SennaP1]

Yankees Suck!

Oh wait, well maybe BB and RAH will get some L-1011s. And we can all be happy, and everyone will hate CHQ and RAH again. If they've ever stopped

 

[saab fixr]

forget the L1011's lets get some v22 ospreys and vertical land at the gate that would solve everything!!!

 

[Sig]

I <3 LGA

now philly could sink into the delaware river and i wouldn't care one bit

Just like LGA- as I've said a billion times before- PHL woud float on the river.

Two turds in the same punch bowl.

 

[The Drizzle]

Just like LGA- as I've said a billion times before- PHL woud float on the river.

Two turds in the same punch bowl.

now that was funny