FAA wants bigger planes to ease LaGuardia crowding

US wants bigger planes to ease LaGuardia crowding

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14517976/


WASHINGTON - Airlines would have to fly larger planes into New York's LaGuardia Airport under a proposal unveiled by U.S. regulators Friday to reduce congestion at one of the nation's most crowded airports. The Federal Aviation Administration hopes to accommodate up to 4 million more passengers per year and end what the agency says is the practice of big airlines underutilizing aircraft to hog precious gate space. The FAA has proposed a series of options for airlines to boost their average yearly capacity on flights into and out of LaGuardia as part of a long-anticipated permanent fix to ease overcrowding and delays.

LaGuardia is among a handful of relatively small U.S. airports in or very close to cities that remain hugely popular -- especially with business travelers -- but have little or no room to expand and operate under tight air traffic restrictions. Scheduled airline flights at LaGuardia are limited by the FAA to 75 per hour. There are more than 1,300 flights per day, including commuter service, with about a third running behind schedule.

"We're trying to get more people through with the same number of flights," Nancy LoBue, the FAA's policy chief, said about the new plan.

US Airways, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines have big operations at LaGuardia. Other major carriers also fly there as do small commuter airlines. The FAA has been studying a response for LaGuardia congestion for several years, having imposed a temporary fix to manage skyrocketing congestion caused by ambitious capacity planning and overscheduling by carriers.

A current cap on flight operations at LaGuardia expires in January 2007. The agency plans a similar restriction while it works to finalize the new plan by next summer. FAA hopes to phase in the permanent strategy by 2010. Regulators are focusing on big airlines underutilizing their fleets to "baby sit" gate space at LaGuardia, keeping rivals out and traffic levels high. About half the the flights at LaGuardia are serviced by 50-seat regional jets, which are losing their value in most other markets because airlines are building their businesses around bigger planes.

LoBue and her agency colleagues believe carriers can make small fleet changes and fly bigger planes to bring their passenger load for LaGuardia up to an annual average of 122 people per aircraft, from about 98.

Some exemptions to small communities would be allowed and the FAA does not anticipate any city losing service to LaGuardia because of the change.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14517976/

I've been saying this for years!!! Where are my press conferences?!?!

I must now block the FAA's IP's from viewing the site...they keep stealing my ideas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I've been saying this for years!!! Where are my press conferences?!?!

I must now block the FAA's IP's from viewing the site...they keep stealing my ideas!

---

You don't count, you just want to take photos of the pretty airplanes! :D :lol:

This sounds good, but none of the articles I've read explain how it will be done. Can the FAA actually assign minimum sizes to slots or specific routes?

Does the FAA think cities like SYR, ROC, PVD, RDU, JAX, GSO, and others alike can support larger aircraft? Absolutely not! Sorry but this is not the answer and it never was the answer. The FAA in no way can mandate size of aircraft for specific slots, the airlines would drop the route vs losing money. The only cities I can see this happening is with is ORD and ATL and somehow I doubt reducing a few movements a day is going to do anything to reduce LGA congestion.

A non-wire story from the Post, which doesn't explain anything either, but does throw the 1,500 mile rule into the equation:

Quote:

---

BIG IDEA FOR AIRPORT


FEDS WOULD ALLOW MORE LARGE JETS AT LAG [sic]


By BILL SANDERSON

August 26, 2006 -- More big jets could be headed for La Guardia in the next few years under a proposed federal rule that would boost the number of people using the airport without adding more flights.
"We are trying to get as much use out of that airport as we can," said Nancy LoBue, a Federal Aviation Administration administrator.

The rule would make way for La Guardia to handle another 4 million passengers yearly without increasing the number of delays, the FAA says.

La Guardia handles about 1,250 takeoffs and landings a day - including many for aircraft with about 50 seats, such as Bombardier and Embraer models.

Under the proposed FAA rule, the average size of the jets using the airport would rise to around 120 seats - about the size of a Boeing 737 or an Airbus A319.

Plenty of Boeing 737-size jets use La Guardia now - the biggest jet the airport handles regularly is a Boeing 767-300 - and Port Authority officials say the slightly bigger Boeing 767-400s are the largest allowed.

Although aircraft makers over the years have quieted engines on the bigger jets, local officials still fear that the proposed changes will mean more noise in their neighborhoods.

"If larger planes would mean fewer flights, I am open to this proposed rule change," said Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-Queens).

"But if larger planes flying in and out of La Guardia would lead to an increase in noise pollution or poorer air-quality conditions for the neighborhoods around the airport, I have concerns."

While Port Authority officials haven't yet scrutinized the proposed rule, posted on the FAA's Web site yesterday, the agency generally backs the idea.

"Our goal has always been to see that airport serve more passengers on the same number or fewer operations," said Port Authority spokesman Pasquale DiFulco.

The FAA hopes to structure the new rule so that airlines won't be discouraged from serving smaller cities upstate.

But some airlines wants to use the proposal as a way to open talks about lengthening flights out of La Guardia.

Under Port Authority rules, La Guardia's nonstop destinations on weekdays can be no more than 1,500 miles away - with the sole exception being Denver.

U.S. Airways, which says it offers about 200 departures daily at La Guardia, says it might use the FAA proposal to argue for a lifting of the 1,500-mile rule so it can serve its hubs in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

The current federal "slot" rules capping the number of flights at La Guardia expire in January. FAA officials hope the replacement rules will be in effect in mid-2007.

---

Yep certainly proof the FAA are a bunch of morons..... :roll: Noise pollution is the least and should be the least of these people's concerns. I want to know where another 4 million people are going to park, eat, and sit at LGA, and then there's the increase in traffic which already is a pain in the ass on the roads around LGA. Where does all this fall into play in this grand plan of there's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Yep certainly proof the FAA are a bunch of morons..... :roll: Noise pollution is the least and should be the least of these people's concerns. I want to know where another 4 million people are going to park, eat, and sit at LGA, and then there's the increase in traffic which already is a pain in the ass on the roads around LGA. Where does all this fall into play in this grand plan of there's?

---

The FAA reacts to the problem, meaning airlines are probably submitting their applications & the FAA has to come up with a plan to accomdate the additional requests.

There will be another report submitted which will detail, what needs to be done to accomdate the additional passengers, additional an EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT} will be submitted, detailing traffic conditions, additional people. etc.


[quote]Regulators are focusing on big airlines underutilizing their fleets to "baby sit" gate space at LaGuardia, keeping rivals out and traffic levels high.

The Federal Aviation Administration hopes to accommodate up to 4 million more passengers per year and end what the agency says is the practice of big airlines underutilizing aircraft to hog precious gate space.

[quote=Midnight Mike]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":ef7c9

Yep certainly proof the FAA are a bunch of morons..... :roll: Noise pollution is the least and should be the least of these people's concerns. I want to know where another 4 million people are going to park, eat, and sit at LGA, and then there's the increase in traffic which already is a pain in the ass on the roads around LGA. Where does all this fall into play in this grand plan of there's?

---

The FAA reacts to the problem, meaning airlines are probably submitting their applications & the FAA has to come up with a plan to accomdate the additional requests.

There will be another report submitted which will detail, what needs to be done to accomdate the additional passengers, additional an EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT} will be submitted, detailing traffic conditions, additional people. etc.

Quote:

---

Regulators are focusing on big airlines underutilizing their fleets to "baby sit" gate space at LaGuardia, keeping rivals out and traffic levels high.

The Federal Aviation Administration hopes to accommodate up to 4 million more passengers per year and end what the agency says is the practice of big airlines underutilizing aircraft to hog precious gate space.

---

[/quote:ef7c9]

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!

I heard this on the radio this morning.

What is the biggest AC that LGA could handle, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

I heard this on the radio this morning.

What is the biggest AC that LGA could handle, anyway?

---

Mario, three way tie. DC-10. L-1011. 764.
777,330,340 and of course 744 not permitted. I assume this will apply to the 787 also.

LGA777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LGA777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

I heard this on the radio this morning.

What is the biggest AC that LGA could handle, anyway?

---

Mario, three way tie. DC-10. L-1011. 764.
777,330,340 and of course 744 not permitted. I assume this will apply to the 787 also.

LGA777

---

787 might be allowed. the 787-8 is about the same size at a 767-300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

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....

In almost thirty years of business flying LGA was my favored airport before EWR joined the big leagues and started offerring flights to almost any destination. Back in the late 70's and 80's you had to go to LGA for the good flights, and guess what ...

Many of those flights were on DC-10s and L-1011s. Back then the larger aircraft were very common. I used to fly AA DC-10s to ORD and EA L-1011s on the shuttle to BOS. My last few trips cross country have been on a CO 738 and a UA A319. Hell, my most recent trip to AMS was on a CO 757. Gone are the days (at least it seems so) when you traveled cross country on 74s, DC-10s and L-1011s. And the excuse, smaller aircraft and more frequent flights. Not sure that's the best way to go. I can tell you, flying cross country on a 738 and A319 is not at all comfortable compared to a DC-10 or L-1011.

And LGA has always been a bottleneck. I remember many hours circling north of the city waiting for our slot into LGA to open up. It was common practice back in the 70s and 80s to keep'em circling until they could land. Not like today where you end up sitting on the ground waiting for a slot to open up before you can even takeoff.

Art

[quote=Midnight Mike]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":f4884

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:f4884]

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=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.