Ultra Crowded Airports

Page 3 of 7<123456>Last »
October 9th, 2017 at 2:45:47 PM permalink
Ayecarumba
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 85
Posts: 1426
It appears LAS charges for landing by the half-ton ($1.93 per 1,000 lbs., GCLW in 2016-17)

Parking appears to be the real killer fee ($300 - $625 for 24 hrs. of Off-Gate Parking, depending on your "Tier" and "Signatory" relationship with the airport). I think this fee is what keeps the small planes away.

There are vendors at the airport that service small planes. Sounds like a dock on a big lake where you can tie up for free with purchase of gas or food, but have to pay to tie up overnight.
October 9th, 2017 at 4:09:40 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5266
Lobster, sushi, etc. come in on special flights. Henderson field had a sushi inspector at one time, worked for the Venetian.

I think a lot of the FBOs allow transient aircraft to "park" there to avoid formal parking charges in transient parking near the fuel pumps.
October 9th, 2017 at 5:44:07 PM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 13
Posts: 2582
Out of curiosity, besides LGA, what other airports implement a perimeter rule?
In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion
October 9th, 2017 at 7:00:54 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: ams288
Out of curiosity, besides LGA, what other airports implement a perimeter rule?


The High Density Rule (or "Slot" rule) is a federal regulation established in 1969 (14 CFR §93.123) to manage congestion at five high density airports: Reagan National, JFK, LaGuardia, Newark and O'Hare.

Perimeter rules are only at Washington National and New York's Laguardia in the USA, and until recently Dallas (DAL) Love field. Perimeter rules protect against crowding, but are also designed to protect long haul flights at Washington Dulles, JFK, and Dallas Fort Worth. This secondary purpose is no longer needed as these larger airports would no longer be threatened by the competition.

The three airports LGA (7003'), DCA (7169'), and DAL(8800') all have short runways which effectively rule out wide-body planes. Other airports have short runways like Chicago Midway (6522') and John Wayne Airport (5701'). San Diego has a full length 9401' runway, but it has only one runway.

I am not sure of a comprehensive list internationally, but I know that Tokyo Haneda's airport had one to force all long haul flights to Narita airport, nearly 60 miles out of town.

But perimeter rules are discussed a lot as people talk about plans to expand airport capacity beyond adding runways to the current geographic location with a supplemental airport. For instance if the Ivanpah airport is built outside of Las Vegas, the desire is not to close the present location or to restrict it to private and regional jets, but to enact a perimeter rule.

You would think that small aircraft would avoid busy airports, but some business jets are flown by people willing to pay large landing fees. San Diego flies about 16% of flights in planes with 115 seats or fewer while LAX has 30% of planes in that size category. Probably the two biggest offenders at LAX are San Diego Airport and Santa Barbara airport who fly small commuter planes the short distance, but LAX also has commuter jets from multiple airports within a few hundred miles.

An airport gate can be crowded as well, but some of that can be relieved by checking people and bags in offsite, so they only need to pass through security at the airport. Statistically people also hijack large planes or international flights. In reality are airport security is probably ridiculous on 400 mile commuter flights. There is always the possibility, but that is true of boats, trains, and subways as well, not to mention long automobile tunnels. But I don't expect the airports to reduce security measures to speed up traffic flow.

Denver is #6 airport in the USA, and it may eventually become number one in domestic passengers as it's size will allow virtually unlimited passenger transfers.

This ranking from 2012 shows ranking by origin and destination passengers only (excluding transfers)
1. LAX
2. LAS
3. ORD
4. MCO
5. LGA
6. BOS
7. PHX
8. DFW
9. SEA
10. DEN

As of right now or for the forseeable future nobody is going to build an Al Maktoum International Airport in the USA with 35,000 acres, with capacity for 260 million passengers, it's own city for a million people. LAX, JFK, and MIA are our primary gateway airports.
October 18th, 2017 at 6:26:56 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
In 2006, a county-wide ballot measure to move the San Diego airport was defeated. The argument was that the airport was by far the largest single runway airport in the USA, the land area was only 660 acres, and it was too close to downtown as that noise was a major issue. The airport broke 10 million passengers in 1988, 17.57 million in 2005 and 20 million in 2015.

Although there was concern about how crowded the terminal was becoming, the emphasis was the strain on the single runway. At the time there was about 25 daily flights on regional aircraft to LAX (109 miles)

The latest data indicates that the turboprops are completely gone, and the 50 seat regional jets are used about once per week. Instead there are 32 daily round trip flights by four airlines with 69 to 76 seats . The number of destinations has increased to 17 with the furthest being Seattle and Vancouver. Only half the regional jets trips are to LAX so the flights were reduced from the 32 seat SAABs which were flying every 15 minutes. Delta also has a daily A319 plane with 103 seats flying from SAN to LAX

Regional jets from San Diego by mileage
85 Palm Springs, CA ~ unusual flight
94 Ontario, CA ~ unusual flight
109 Los Angeles, CA ~ mostly regional jets - 1 small narrowbody daily
258 Las Vegas, NV
314 Fresno, CA ~ regional jets only
350 Mammoth Lakes, CA ~ regional jets only
375 Monterey, CA ~ regional jets only
417 San Jose, CA
447 San Francisco, CA
480 Sacramento, CA
508 Santa Rosa, CA ~ regional jets only
626 Salt Lake City, UT
749 Boise, ID ~ regional jets only
769 Hayden, CO ~ regional jets only less than daily
853 Denver, CO
1050 Seattle, WA
1177 Vancouver, Canada ~ regional jets only

My guess is that about half of these destinations (like Fresno, Hayden, Boise...) would not have routes if it wasn't for regional jets.

Leaving out these 32 round trip flights done with 69 and 76 seat regional jets the other 214 round trips per day average 153 seats with an average of 27 seats vacant. Southwest is the dominant airline with 143 and 175 seat aircraft.

In light of the runway being seriously overcrowded and the impetus behind the proposed $10 + billion replacement airport, would you favor simply outlawing regional jets? In other setting 100 seats as the minimum to use the airport.

Right now there are 15-16 flights per day the 109 miles to LAX. Average seats is 77 with -23 seats empty. Now you could carry the same number of seats with 11 trips on a Delta B717 jet with 110 seats, but wait times might be longer.

It's a hypothetical question right now as the FAA does not permit those kind of restrictions (even though they permit perimeter restrictions). But basically it concerns airline flexibility and passenger flexibility vs overuse of a public asset.

Quote: UCSD Professor: Miramar Is Not Answer For New Airport Nov 2, 2006

Experts on economics and airline travel said Marine Corps Air Station Miramar is not the solution to San Diego’s airport needs.
In fact, a researcher who specializes in both fields said one solution saves fliers a lot of money.

Based on a report by University of California, San Diego economics professor Richard Carson, the solution is simple.

The report calls for the airport to remain at Lindbergh Field, to add on to it and create competition.
The experts hired by the San Diego Airport Authority said there is no choice.
Airport Authority officials spent millions of dollars selling a message to the public.
The message was that Lindbergh Field is too small, and the only solution is Miramar.

"In retrospect, it looks just like a PR campaign,” said Carson.

Carson is a consultant to companies in the air travel business. The largest company he advises is Boeing.

He forecasts the future air traffic trends, and in his report completed with two other UCSD researchers, Carson showed how the planned move to Miramar is skewed.

Dr. Carson Airport Study
Carson’s report indicates Miramar “fails as a forecasting tool” and said “the need for two long runways to support long-haul wide-bodied aircraft is effectively zero.”

"This is sort of a manufactured crisis. I mean, literally, you look at the number of takeoffs and landings at Lindbergh, and it hasn't changed, and that's because the number of passengers has increased substantially," said Carson.

The reason for the increase is many airlines have driven out the smaller planes. Larger planes are more economical per passenger.

Carson suggested adding terminal buildings to increase the number of passengers Lindbergh can handle.
He also suggested adding another runway so there are two just slightly longer than the existing runway. "That's known to increase capacity by roughly about 25 percent, which is all San Diego needs," said Carson. He also suggested making Palomar Airport a sister airport for short flights. That would be convenient to North County travelers and relieve pressure at Lindbergh. Because all you need to do is get planes out to Phoenix, Denver or Salt Lake City,” said Carson. Carson also said the second airport has already driven down ticket prices in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and other markets.

He also wanted fewer flights to Los Angeles, but on larger planes. This would do away with the small turbo props that eat up takeoff and landing slots but do not carry many passengers.

The airport also needs to change the way it does business, Carson said. Right now, the airport charges airlines based on weight. He suggested selling time slots to airlines and moving all air cargo to an area such as March Air Base near Hemet.

DHL is already moving its southern California distribution center to March Air Base. The changes suggested by Carson would cost millions of dollars, not the estimated $6 billion to $10 billion it would cost to build a new airport at Miramar.

Copyright 2007 by 10News.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
October 18th, 2017 at 2:03:31 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 7352
Quote: Wizard
But the plane should pay its fair share of expenses to run and maintain the airport. In an emergency, no plan should be turned away but I think it is normal with boats to paying a docking fee.


My brother and I flew for his cross county flight in 1994 and had to land at Philadelphia international for gas. I think he also had to land at a third place. Little 152 on the runway with jets. $40 just to pull up to the pump. I doubt we took a slot off schedule. But $40 way back.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
October 18th, 2017 at 2:59:28 PM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 18
Posts: 841
Quote: AZDuffman
My brother and I flew for his cross county flight in 1994 and had to land at Philadelphia international for gas. I think he also had to land at a third place. Little 152 on the runway with jets. $40 just to pull up to the pump. I doubt we took a slot off schedule. But $40 way back.


My first time landing a Cessna 150 at McCarran airport in Las Vegas I announced to the tower that I was a student pilot and would like to do some touch and go's. It was early in the morning so they allowed it. The controller told me to turn left base for runway 25 and follow the American DC-10, but then they added the "but not too closely" which then scared the crap out of me as I don't know how close I can safely be to a DC-10.
October 18th, 2017 at 5:01:55 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Quote: DRich
The controller told me to turn left base for runway 25 and follow the American DC-10, but then they added the "but not too closely" which then scared the crap out of me as I don't know how close I can safely be to a DC-10.


I imagine such things ought to be covered in flight school. All planes leave disturbed air on their wake, a phenomenon called wake turbulence. When you follow a plane too closely, you run into it before it dissipates and that can bring down your plane. there are ways to recover, yes, but the probability of a successful recovery depends on the size difference between planes, and the altitude.

A Cessna close to landing getting caught int eh wake of a large wide body like a DC-10, has about as much chance of not hitting the ground as a snowball not evaporating if placed three inches from the surface of the Sun (your mileage may vary).

Wake turbulence notably took down an AA 757 back in 2001, a private jet in Mex City around 2008 or so, and recently almost another private jet near the Arabic Peninsula.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
October 19th, 2017 at 7:13:35 AM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 18
Posts: 841
Quote: Nareed
I imagine such things ought to be covered in flight school. All planes leave disturbed air on their wake, a phenomenon called wake turbulence. When you follow a plane too closely, you run into it before it dissipates and that can bring down your plane. there are ways to recover, yes, but the probability of a successful recovery depends on the size difference between planes, and the altitude.



I'm sure the controller was just messing with me. He knew I was a student and would never allow me to get to close to a heavy jet. The truth is the top speed on my Cessna is slower than the landing speed of the jet. There was no way I could close the distance from when he told me to turn.
October 19th, 2017 at 8:20:34 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
I remember back in 2005 when they were running that campaign in San Diego where the economic sky would collapse unless there was a new airport they were using 2004 data where the planes averaged 91 passengers per trip.

I remember saying that all that would happen would be they would fly bigger planes and the trips would stay the same. These dire predictions of the collapse of the county economy were ridiculous.

In 2016 there was a 27% increase in passengers over 2004, but a 32% increase in passengers per flight. So the terminals have to be built out to handle the extra people.

The question to the forum is still open about flat out barring the small regional jets and private jets.

Well they went from 91 persons per trip to 120 passengers per trip, and they have actually reduced the number of trips over the past 12 years.

Year Psgrs/flight trips
2002 90 80,579
2003 88 85,852
2004 91 89,339
2006 92 94,602
2007 91 100,066
2008 93 96,908
2009 98 85,811
2010 104 81,319
2011 106 79,534
2012 107 80,601
2013 108 82,027
2014 111 83,674
2015 118 84,802
2016 120 85,696


A variation on the question is that they would be allowed to fly to airports where no narrow body service exists

Miles
314 Fresno, CA ~ regional jets only
350 Mammoth Lakes, CA ~ regional jets only
375 Monterey, CA ~ regional jets only
508 Santa Rosa, CA ~ regional jets only
749 Boise, ID ~ regional jets only
769 Hayden, CO ~ regional jets only less than daily
1177 Vancouver, Canada ~ regional jets only

But not permitted to major airports where the regional jets are interspersed with full size jets.
Miles
258 Las Vegas, NV
417 San Jose, CA
447 San Francisco, CA
480 Sacramento, CA
626 Salt Lake City, UT
853 Denver, CO
1050 Seattle, WA



Nearby LAX would have to be treated individually, as it's 16 flights per day are almost all on regional jets
109 miles: Los Angeles, CA

There is easily enough traffic to be carried on 10 flights per day with full size narrowbodies, but people don't want to ride there on a bus, and they also don't want to wait at the airport for longer times
Page 3 of 7<123456>Last »