FAA wants bigger planes to ease LaGuardia crowding

[quote=T-Bird76][quote="Midnight Mike":731e9]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":731e9

Mike I think you summed up the problem in your first line "reacts." The FAA needs to stop reacting and start planning for the future!

---

That is not the job of the FAA. Advanced planning should fall under the city/state government, but, certainly not the FAA.

The role of the FAA is many things, but, primarily, safety....[/quote:731e9]

Mike has the California sun gotten to you???? Of course the FAA is in the business of planning and planning for future air growth in the U.S skies. Half the problem with LGA is the FAA's fault. The trafic control system in the entire country is so dam old that it leads congestion. The FAA needs to move its ass into the 21st century.[/quote:731e9]

The effect that the FAA has on planning is how it relates to safety, I agree that the LGA is a congested airport, but, you have to remember that the FAA falls under the Federal Government, & the Federal Government can not get in the way of interstate commerce. Now if there are aircraft

Now, Tommy, you do know who I work for & I speak with FAA Inspectors on a daily basis, the next time that I am in New York I can introduce you to the FAA Inspectors in New York, I know some of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Of course the FAA is in the business of planning and planning for future air growth in the U.S skies. Half the problem with LGA is the FAA's fault. The trafic control system in the entire country is so dam old that it leads congestion. The FAA needs to move its ass into the 21st century.

---

LGA has the power to shoot down any provision that the FAA presents, so I wouldn't blame them.

Not that they haven't made corrections, but what SHOULD the FAA be doing to LGA, as opposed to what they ARE doing? That airport is a great link to Manhattan and is underutilizing. I ask what your recommendations are.

Today's LGA is of course much different than 15-20 or even 10 years ago. There once was a time when every city was served by nothing smaller than a DC9. Even places like Albany , Burlington and Syracuse were served by mainline jets.

The airline's love affair with the RJ has fueled this. I have mentioned in meetings this very point . Every RJ gets treated the same as a 737 or A320 series. They use the same amount of runway ( airports can not use shorter GA runways ) , most can not take advantage of LAHSO ( Land And Hold Short Ops ) . In some cases they fly as high as faster aircraft , forcing the trailing aircraft to slow . One of the worst offenders of this was the Do328Jet. It would cruise up near FL310 and cause a bottleneck behind it.

A Dash 8 , or ATR or even Dash 7 can take advantage of LAHSO , usually cruise no higher than FL250 ( of course while burning less gas doing it )
I'm not saying bring back the Shorts 360's and Twin Otters but theres no reason why a DH8 cant serve the pubic as well as an RJ in some cases .


We all saw what happened when some genious opened up LGA with the "AIR21" bill to aircraft under 70 seats . The airlines went nuts ( including the one I worked for at the time ) putting every CRJ/ERJ/FRJ they could find into LGA. It was a mess until the FAA finally said enough and put in place the current rule.

The 787-3 will be the only one of the 787 family small enough to fit at LGA. The wingspan is 170ft ( 4 inches shorter than the 767-400ER)

The length is within a few feet of the 767-300 at 180ft . so picture a 767-300ER with a -400ER's wing....

While AIR21 can be the cause of it, I wouldn't say it was a bad thing. Something needed to be done so people could use NYC to connect to the smaller regional cities. It needed to happen for the good of the people. The problem is that LGA is trapped as a largte airport in a small airport's body.

I think much of it could be solved if it were possible to have LGA re-built to handle more operations. A terminal with more to do beyond security would make it more appealing to the public, and a parallel runway system to create more efficient traffic control.

LGA will always have this problem until they build over Flushing Bay, or erase half of Astoria. Building a new airport won't help either unlessthey plan on shutting down GLA once the new one opens.

Ok once again I beat Boyd with my assessment on bigger planes at LGA! Here's his take on it, sounds familiar doesn't it boys!!!! Yes my head is expanding, but hell what can I say I know my stuff! What did I say????? Our ATC system sucks and that larger planes is not the solution!!!! You all should be honored to have such a mind like mine on this site, LOLOLOL Now that is over the top :lol:

Quote:

---

Like Willie Sutton Planning Bank Security...
Finally, The FAA Again Moves To Reduce Delays

A few years ago, the Feds decided to implement a new program at LaGuardia that would do wonders for small airports. They opened lots more slots for the exclusive operation of "regional jets." The idea in their lizard-size brains was that since these were "regional jets" the slots would engender lots of service to small, airports.

Needless to say, almost no small communities got any access to LGA. The program was brain dead from the gitgo.

Now, the FAA has another grand plan, one that is engineered to assure that their inability to build an ATC system is completely accommodated. They are recommending that only larger aircraft be allowed to use LGA. That, according to the FAA, will counter those nasty airlines who insist on "overscheduling."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Does the FAA think cities like SYR, ROC, PVD, RDU, JAX, GSO, and others alike can support larger aircraft?

---

RDU has a number of wider body jets. Delta has a few 763s daily to Atlanta in addition to a daily 777 nonstop on American. RDU doesn't fit with these other airports. Sorry, just had to point that out.

[quote=RDU-JFK]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":113fc

Does the FAA think cities like SYR, ROC, PVD, RDU, JAX, GSO, and others alike can support larger aircraft?

---

RDU has a number of wider body jets. Delta has a few 763s daily to Atlanta in addition to a daily 777 nonstop on American. RDU doesn't fit with these other airports. Sorry, just had to point that out.[/quote:113fc]

Ok your talking apples to oranges here. The DAL 763s feed a mega hub, no way will a 763 be profitable on a LGA-RDU run. AA's London flight is feed with ERJs since RDU is still somewhat of a focus city for AA. There's a reason why RDU is no-longer a hub for AA, it couldn't support hub operations. Oh remember Midway??? Belly up. RDU is a fine airport but the surrounding area cannot and does not support large aircraft utilization to the NYC area. So why should AA cut there 10 flights a day to lets say 5 and use bigger aircraft? This would greatly limit a customer's options. The fact of the matter is the congestion at LGA is the FAA's fault plain and simple, they let the airlines do what they want and their system can't support the increased traffic.

T-Bird I read your first reply to the topic as RDU not supporting wide-body aircraft, which it obviously does. I did not know you were referring to widebodies to NYC, in which case people prefer the luxury of a flexible travel schedule.

Tommy would you believe at the peak of the AA RDU hub AA actually briefly operated 3 DC-10s A DAY LGA-RDU. Either late 80's or Early 90s, I think it lasted less than a year !

LGA777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LGA777

Tommy would you believe at the peak of the AA RDU hub AA actually briefly operated 3 DC-10s A DAY LGA-RDU. Either late 80's or Early 90s, I think it lasted less than a year !

LGA777

---

I remember flying into RDU from ISP on an AA 727 and once an MD-80. My have times changed.

In 2002 I flew LGA-RDU on an A319 as well as RIC-LGA on an A319. What happened that these occasional US Airways mainline routes on a mostly RJ route disappeared?

I saw some more details of the FAA's plan (22 pages long), and some of it makes sense.

They are going to limit aircraft per hour to 75, which I don't think is much differnet than right now, but more interestingly, they will also enforce 15-minute slot intervals, as airlines were scheduling flights at the last minute of the an hour to get able to get into the next hour a minute sooner.

I think it's a decent idea, although there are so many detials and variables. I'm just excited to see how it all turns out.