Ultra Crowded Airports

Page 1 of 71234>Last »
October 8th, 2017 at 11:08:49 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
One of the ways of dealing with ultra crowded airports like LaGuardia or Washington National is a perimeter rule. Flights are limited to a certain perimeter, with exceptions. For La Guardia the perimeter is 1500 miles with Denver as the long term exemption. It looks like they got an exemption to fly weekly flights in a small A319 to Telluride (a destination for the ultra wealthy). Southwest is trying to get approval for Phoenix.

Three Canadian airports actually have fairly busy routes to La Guardia.



What are your thoughts on perimeter rules?
October 8th, 2017 at 12:47:41 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5266
Quote: Pacomartin
What are your thoughts on perimeter rules?
What is the rule? You must fly more than 1500 miles from an airport that is deemed "crowded"? Well, end the slot system and let pilots fly their own flight plans, not the FAA routes.

Allow takeoffs that have high load factors so as to decrease crowding.
October 8th, 2017 at 1:00:56 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 178
Posts: 3644
I don't know how they already do it but I would favor a market-based approach where if an airport is at capacity in terms of landings and takeoffs, then auction off spots to the highest bidder.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
October 8th, 2017 at 3:38:37 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
The Port Authority's perimeter rule for La Guardia was originally set at 2,000 miles in the 1950s and was reduced to 1,500 miles in 1984. The rule does not apply to flights on Saturday and flights to and from Denver, which is about 1,600 miles away.

Map shows 1500 and 2000 mile perimeter.

Quote: Wizard
I don't know how they already do it but I would favor a market-based approach where if an airport is at capacity in terms of landings and takeoffs, then auction off spots to the highest bidder.


I think this is an excellent suggestion. The FAA proposes to allow airlines to buy, sell, lease, or trade slots through a secondary market, but they do not address the perimeter rule.

I think that the authorities are afraid that airlines would buy all the slots used for short range routes for LAX, SFO, LAS and SEA. They are probably correct. The three upstate NY state airlines believe that they only get traffic from La Guardia because of the perimeter rule, so that they can transfer passengers there and then fly them to the West Coast.

Quote: FAA: Summary of Proposed Rule (NPRM for short)

Slot Limits: Hourly Slot Limits would remain unchanged from the existing Orders. Limits to unscheduled operations would remain the same at LaGuardia and become effective at JFK and EWR. The limits under the NPRM would be as follows:
- JFK: 81 scheduled operations per hour & 2 unscheduled operations per hour. (Daily 0600 to 2259);
- EWR: 81 scheduled operations per hour & 1 unscheduled operation per hour. (Daily 0600 to 2259);
- LGA: 71 scheduled operations per hour & 3 unscheduled operations per hour (M-F 0600 to 2159 & Sundays 1200 to 2159).

Daily Slot Limit: There would be a daily limit on scheduled operations at all three airports as follows:
- JFK Daily Limit: 1205 slots between the hours 0600 to 2159;
- EWR Daily Limit: 1205 slots between the hours 0600 to 2159;
- LGA Daily Limit: 1136 slots between the hours 0600 to 2159.

Usage Requirement: The NPRM would require use of an allocated slot 80 percent of the time for the same flight or series of flights throughout the scheduling season. (Note: This is a change from the existing usage rules because it would require each slot to be accounted for individually).

Secondary Market: The NPRM proposes to allow airlines to buy, sell, lease, or trade slots through a secondary market. The NPRM proposes five alternatives for the secondary market.


I don't see anything in the rules that prohibits widebody aircraft, but as the runways are only 7000' long, it may be impossible to bring in a widebody.

The problem with the perimeter rule is that it encourages lots of very small planes. The average number of seats per plane is just over 100. Only a single destination 500 miles or less averages planes with over 100 seats, the ultra busy LGA to Toronto route.



Miles : Seats/plane average
96 68 PHL Philadelphia, PA
184 94 BOS Boston, MA
195 53 MHT Manchester, NH
198 58 SYR Syracuse, NY <================= upstate NY
214 80 DCA Washington, DC
229 70 IAD Washington, DC
254 62 ROC Rochester, NY <================= upstate NY
258 57 BTV Burlington, VT
269 64 PWM Portland, ME
292 59 RIC Richmond, VA
292 83 BUF Buffalo, NY <================= upstate NY
296 50 ORF Norfolk, VA
305 51 CHO Charlottesville, VA
324 69 YUL Montreal, Canada
327 50 YOW Ottawa, Canada
335 68 PIT Pittsburgh, PA
357 106 YYZ Toronto, Canada
378 61 BGR Bangor, ME
397 50 CAK Akron, OH
405 50 ROA Roanoke, VA
419 59 CLE Cleveland, OH
431 72 RDU Raleigh/Durham, NC
461 60 GSO Greensboro/High Point, NC
479 66 CMH Columbus, OH
500 56 ILM Wilmington, NC

Seats/plane average on busiest routes
121 ORD Chicago, IL
147 ATL Atlanta, GA
162 MIA Miami, FL
94 BOS Boston, MA
162 FLL Fort Lauderdale, FL
138 DFW Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
106 YYZ Toronto, Canada
119 CLT Charlotte, NC
163 MCO Orlando, FL
116 DTW Detroit, MI
October 8th, 2017 at 4:10:35 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
1) Set up an airport with a perimeter rule and run it for 5 years without changing any other rules.

2) Remove the perimeter rule, leave all other rules as they were, and run it like that for another 5 years.

3) Compare the two and you have an answer as to which is better at reducing crowding.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
October 8th, 2017 at 4:25:59 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Wizard
I don't know how they already do it but I would favor a market-based approach where if an airport is at capacity in terms of landings and takeoffs, then auction off spots to the highest bidder.


One consequence is that airlines may simply decide to leave an airport if they can get enough money for the slots. United Airlines recently left JFK and sold their slots, to concentrate on Newark Airport. United Air Lines also had three destinations from LaGuardia: DEN, IAH, ORD. They may simply sell those slots just like they did at JFK.

Frontier Airlines Inc. with daily flights to ATL and MIA may simply sell the slots and reduce competition to those airports.

As Las Vegas will face the same issue soon, how would you feel if Allegiant simply sold their slots and relocated to another city?

Quote: Nareed
1) Set up an airport with a perimeter rule and run it for 5 years without changing any other rules.
2) Remove the perimeter rule, leave all other rules as they were, and run it like that for another 5 years.
3) Compare the two and you have an answer as to which is better at reducing crowding.


Well, you can't really do those kind of real time experiments.

But half of the flights from La Gaurdia are on regional jets with 50-76 seats. If you lift the perimeter rule and make nonstops to the seven great western airports available: LAX, SFO, SAN, LAS, PHX, SLC and SEA, I guarantee you that the airlines won't be using limited slots for regional jets.

Canadair CRJ 900
Embraer ERJ-175
Emb-170/EMb-175
Canadair RJ-700
Embraer-145
Canadair RJ-200ER /RJ-440

A lot of people think small urban airports should be limited to regional jets. If the FAA limits LGA to 1136 slots (takeoff and landings) and you limit the aircraft to 76 seats than that would be 31.5 million seats per year. 'Since some of the aircraft will be 50 seats, and seats will be empty, the airport cannot expand too far above the 14,706,123 passengers last year.
October 8th, 2017 at 7:41:50 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 178
Posts: 3644
Quote: Pacomartin
One consequence is that airlines may simply decide to leave an airport if they can get enough money for the slots. United Airlines recently left JFK and sold their slots, to concentrate on Newark Airport. United Air Lines also had three destinations from LaGuardia: DEN, IAH, ORD. They may simply sell those slots just like they did at JFK.

Frontier Airlines Inc. with daily flights to ATL and MIA may simply sell the slots and reduce competition to those airports.

As Las Vegas will face the same issue soon, how would you feel if Allegiant simply sold their slots and relocated to another city?


I still stand by my market-based solution of selling slots to the highest bidder. However, I recognize that competition is a vital part of the free market. I'd suggest a rule that no one airline may own more than x% of the slots. Otherwise, big airlines would buy slots at a loss to force smaller airlines out the market.

Regarding Allegiant, as long as there was sufficient diversity in Las Vegas, which seems to be the case, I'd be okay with it. Southwest seems to have about 40% of the landings, so I wouldn't want them buying the Allegiant spots.

Regarding the perimeter rule, I think that would make problems only worse. Cross-country flights would have to make stops along the way to adhere to the perimeter laws, only increasing the number of segments nationwide.

Maybe a bit off topic, but once a friend flew me from San Diego to Vegas on a little Cesna plane and we landed at McCarran. I don't see why the FAA wasted a landing spot at McCarran to a plane that could hold only four people, including the pilot. If I were running things, I would make little planes land at North Las Vegas, unless they wanted to pay the same amount that big passengers planes pay for a McCarran landing. In all fairness, this would have been around 1989.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
October 8th, 2017 at 9:52:51 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Wizard
Maybe a bit off topic, but once a friend flew me from San Diego to Vegas on a little Cesna plane and we landed at McCarran. I don't see why the FAA wasted a landing spot at McCarran to a plane that could hold only four people, including the pilot. If I were running things, I would make little planes land at North Las Vegas, ....


It's puzzling. San Diego Airport authority had a big campaign to state that the airport was limited because it was the busiest single runway airport in the nation. The economic consequences of not building a new airport were $93 billion by one calculation. But right in the middle of this campaign the airport authority announced they wanted to establish a second fixed base operator at the airport to provide competition in servicing private jets.

The airport authority insists that under FAA rules they have to let any plane that wants to land at the airport.

Quote: Wizard
... unless they wanted to pay the same amount that big passengers planes pay for a McCarran landing. In all fairness, this would have been around 1989.


That was my question as well. Perhaps it may be the law that you can't deny them landing, but who is to say they would have to be rich as Donald Trump to pay for it. Why would you want to make it more convenient? Wouldn't it be better to say, you can land here, but there is no fuel, no food, no mechanics and no parking plus it will cost you a fortune.
October 8th, 2017 at 10:24:58 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Washington National has a perimeter rule which first went into effect in January 1966 as a voluntary agreement by air carriers in order to get permission to use short-haul jets at National. In 1986, as part of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act which handed control of National over to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the perimeter was extended to 1250 miles to enable direct flights to Houston.

Quote: Wizard
Regarding the perimeter rule, I think that would make problems only worse. Cross-country flights would have to make stops along the way to adhere to the perimeter laws, only increasing the number of segments nationwide.


That is precisely what happens. In many cases in Washington the plane would simply fly 24-30 miles to Washington Dulles or even BWI before flying past the 1250 mile routes





I'm not sure how a perimeter rule would work in Las Vegas, presumably to send traffic to the Ivanpah airport. Would it be 700 miles to include Denver, 1000 miles to include Portland and Seattle, or would it be 1250 miles to include Dallas and Houston?




To date no one has tried to restrict flights to regional jets. As I said for La Gaurdia about half the passengers fly on regional jets with 50-76 seats.
October 9th, 2017 at 1:01:10 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5266
Quote: Pacomartin
That was my question as well. Perhaps it may be the law that you can't deny them landing, but who is to say they would have to be rich as Donald Trump to pay for it. Why would you want to make it more convenient? Wouldn't it be better to say, you can land here, but there is no fuel, no food, no mechanics and no parking plus it will cost you a fortune.
In what way does a millionaire's private jet with five passengers cost the airport more than a scheduled airliner with 300 passengers.

Same airspace, same runway length, same parking space, same radar, same controllers.

Its the "prime time" that is limited and its 'prime' only to the airlines, but the airlines are not the airport's customers, the local community is. The five passenger jet may involve a local multimillion dollar real estate development, the 300 passenger plane probably involves gawkers grubbing for low priced rooms. Which is more valuable to the community.

The airport should serve the aviation community, not the airlines.

Airlines want prime slots; small planes don't need mile long runways and should not have to pay for them directly or indirectly.
Page 1 of 71234>Last »