PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3881 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Now I may not be a fan of the slower-than-glacial FAA (Farting Around Always), but if the government doesn't have the authority to slot control airports that are DESPERATELY and almost comically overcrowded, then the government can't have any power AT ALL.
And while I might not agree with some aspects of the plan, such as forcing some airlines to auction off some of their slots, setting a maximum number of take-offs and landings per hour and restricting it to ONLY those makes sense.
I'm sorry that airlines will no longer be allowed to schedule 400 departures in a 30 minutes period "because the market demands it" (PLEASE note the sarcasm!!), but that's not even realistic under the most ideal of conditions, much less the atrocity that can be the weather. Priority, however, MUST be given to the airline(s) that have invested the most in the facilities, and not just auctioned off "so everyone can have a chance" as some newcomers are crying.
If the airlines feel its unfair, perhaps they can deal with the NIMBY's who delight in keeping NYC's airports hemmed in and horrifically antiquated.
What this country needs is an independent commission, similiar to the Federal Reserve, that operates without Congressional or Presidential interference, that is charged with keeping our transportation needs met. It will be unpleasant for some - especially congressmen who thrive on pandering to NIMBY's - but at least the bickering over how to make it "painless to absolutely everyone" that inevitably ends in a Titanic-like disaster will end.
Wishful thinking.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15401 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): Now I may not be a fan of the slower-than-glacial FAA (Farting Around Always), but if the government doesn't have the authority to slot control airports that are DESPERATELY and almost comically overcrowded, then the government can't have any power AT ALL.
Well, yeah, the federal government is NOT granted unlimited powers. And it isn't an all or nothing proposition as you falsely claim. It's a constitutional thing. State rights and all.
A city/state should have the right to decide how to use it's resources. If the feds don't agree, they can cut federal funding, but shouldn't be able to just jump in and regulate.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 22503 posts, RR: 66 Reply 3, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2267 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Well, yeah, the federal government is NOT granted unlimited powers. And it isn't an all or nothing proposition as you falsely claim. It's a constitutional thing. State rights and all.
A city/state should have the right to decide how to use it's resources. If the feds don't agree, they can cut federal funding, but shouldn't be able to just jump in and regulate.
The federal government is allowed to regulate the "instrumentalities" of inter-state commerce, and that includes airports and airplanes. They have pretty much all the power they want with airports.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3881 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2260 times:
The courts have ruled that the federal government has final authority on air travel. I would imagine that in being responsible for all 50 states air travel - and the consequences that happen if one area isn't working - have to fall under federal jurisdiction. Otherwise, it's a mish-mash of 50 states trying to coordinate air travel.
I wouldn't ever lobby for unlimited powers, but someone has to be in charge of the system. If NYC area airports aren't going to expand or grow - and obviously they're not - airlines cannot pretend that they are. Someone has to be the referee and say, "this is your limit unless you expand".
If NYC voters decide that their facilities shall remain as-is, then that's their decision. I would not advocate that any part of the federal government say, "just tear down New Jersey and make the whole state an airport/train station/freeway". The cities and their metro area can live with the consequences. However, if the resulting mismanagement of scheduling and airspace disrupts the rest of the country, then something has to be done.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): What this country needs is an independent commission, similiar to the Federal Reserve, that operates without Congressional or Presidential interference, that is charged with keeping our transportation needs met. It will be unpleasant for some - especially congressmen who thrive on pandering to NIMBY's - but at least the bickering over how to make it "painless to absolutely everyone" that inevitably ends in a Titanic-like disaster will end.
Oh, that would be wonderful, but ultimately, the problem with such an idea is the funding. The Federal Reserve doesn't need much funding and its funding needs are rather constant because there are very few variables. For example, the Federal Reserve, so far as I know, doesn't need additional funding to deal with a given crisis. A Federal Transportation Reserve needs more money if they decide to build a project and their funding would have to be congressionally controlled.
I wish there was a way around it.
The NIMBYS are one of the biggest barriers to progress in this country. In Europe they tell them to shut the hell up and deal with a high-speed train track passing along the border of their farm. There's criticism and controversy, but what is needed often gets done, particularly with High-Speed Rail, which is a major part of the solution to our transportation problem.
I just feel like nothing useful gets done anymore in this country.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3881 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2190 times:
Quote: Oh, that would be wonderful, but ultimately, the problem with such an idea is the funding.
Agreed. We'd have to raise airfares $.02 per segment, which would (a) have the consumer rise up in arms over the "biggest increase in history" (note the sarcasm), and (b) never go into transportation, but into a slush-fund for politicians to gorge themselves on.
Quote: I just feel like nothing useful gets done anymore in this country.
Nothing does - unless, of course, you count the ability to hide the crumbling infrastructure from public view. Keep it out of sight and out of mind, and $$$ can go somewhere else.
Quote: What is a peak late afternoon or early evening JFK slot worth?
I think New York should do what Chicago O'Hare has done - priority to international flights. Obviously Port Authority doesn't want to see all those Delta trans-Atlantic and trans-polar non-stops disappear, nor do they want to discourage any new international carrier from extending into New York. If, let's say, at the peak hour of departure, you give priority to international carriers, and then turn around and give American carriers credit of some sort for "de-peaking" their hub, the way Delta has done, then you might actually spread the flights out and keep that inevitable "evening rush" from happening.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15401 posts, RR: 48 Reply 8, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 4): The courts have ruled that the federal government has final authority on air travel.
But the local/state officials are in charge of the airports. The FAA gets the planes to the airport, but the airport handles gate use, terminal use, parking fees, etc. etc.
By the FAA or DOT or whoever else stepping in and auctioning off the use of airport facilities that are NOT theirs, they may be overstepping their powers. I expect a legal challenge here to further define exactly how far this power extends.
Now, the FAA could, in theory step in in a different way and say that they will only clear X flights per hour, and then let the airport figure out how to handle it (which is what they were initially talking about). That's a flight cap system, or a "federal budget of flights for the region." That makes more sense to me than having the feds dictate how to allocate those flights, especially when there is a plan to force airlines to give up slots to be REAUCTIONED (redistribution rather then straight limits on flights). That smacks of the feds getting into the "fairness" business, and promoting one private company over another private company…
A major reason that letting the feds allocate slots is bad in my book is that the feds have to look out for all interests around the country, the states only have to look out for their own. The state may not want the routes imposed on it by the federal government (think of some of the routes the CAB forced on airports, and how the flights were very empty). Some high ranking Senator from Wyoming or SD may decide he/she wants a non-stop to JFK and lobby the federal government to mandate that via the next step (or slip it into a budget bill, for example), at which point one state is using the federal government to tell another state what to do with it's resources for it's own gain (see DCA exceptions as examples of this artificial route creation via congressional intervention).
The more you federalize control of slot allocation, the less say any local person has in the system, the more democracy is damaged. It's easier to influence the vote in a state than it is nationally. An airport debacle can rise to importance on the local and even the state level when it comes to elections, but nobody is going to choose the next president based on airport politics. That means if the FAA/DOT, etc. are granted too much power, they will be able to act unilaterally (and we know how much trouble the USA gets into when administrations act unilaterally). This is the value of limiting federal power, because it keeps as much power in the hands of the people as possible.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3033 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): The state may not want the routes imposed on it by the federal government
No one is talking about imposing what routes to fly.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): The more you federalize control of slot allocation, the less say any local person has in the system, the more democracy is damaged. It's easier to influence the vote in a state than it is nationally.
But voters have little knowledge or understanding of how aviation works and historically voters have had little care (except when it comes to noise issues). I can guarantee you that your average resident of DC or NYC doesn't have a clue that DCA or LGA are slot restricted. Airport politics rarely reaches the radar screen on even the local level (again except for noise when consumers just want fewer planes flying over their house).
And while airports may be controlled at the state/local level, what goes on at one airport effects many others. Delays at JFK affect people flying out of airports across the country. Why should a resident of Virginia have their travel plans screwed up because the bozos in NYC can't get their act together? Particularly, when almost all airports receive federal grants on a regular basis. This means taxpayers across the country are paying for the screw-up in NYC and elsewhere.
Ideally, you are correct that the airport and the airlines should try to solve some of these problems. However, they have almost always been unwilling. The PANYNJ has repeatedly refused to do anything in regard to the NYC airports. The airlines repeatedly overschedule airports and also squat on slots to prevent others from getting them. At some point in time, the Feds are forced to come in and do something unilaterally.
Remember, the Feds tried to go hands off. They removed all slot restrictions at JFK and let the free market go. It took no time at all for the airlines to hang themselves. The FAA repeatedly warned the airlines/airports to change their behavior at JFK, but nothing happened. So now we get gov't intervention which is less than ideal, but the status quo can't continue.
Adxmatt From United States, joined Jul 2006, 582 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
The NYC problems will not go away on their own. Having slots are not new. JFK had them for the longest time and when they were dropped to allow Jet Blue to increase service others did as well.
If one NYC airport is capped they all should be too including TEB,MMU,JFK,LGA,EWR.
Corp a/c already have a procedure to get a slot at LGA and can be expanded to TEB/MMU as those a/c affect LGA and EWR traffic flows.
The slots should be allocated based on who is flying to that airport. Why should slots be auctioned off to someone? If they wanted to fly here they can do it now but chose not to. If they want to fly later on then they can "lease" a slot from someone. DCA does that so why can't NY?
We also need to address the stone age technology of our ATC System. There is NO REASON why EWR/JFK/LGA should be experience 2 1/2 hour delays today due to 600ft cielings and 2 miles vis in light rain!!! What is going to happen when we get some Thunderstorms?
We need to use the money collected on AIRLINE Tickets and to collect FEEs from corporate jets to fund the modernization. The gov't has to stop using these tax dollars to offset the deficet or for something else. The corp players want the services then they need to pay their fair share.
The new system needs to be PERFORMANCE based. The modern airliners with with that can meet certain performance such as CPDLC, low RNP values etc should get priority as they can perform better and don't need as large of a safety bubble.
If ATC would clear the flight via a specific procedure and to cross a point in space at a specific min/sec the a/c computer can do that. Whatever the flight profile might be. The procedures have changed little but the technology onboard has. We don't need the amount of separation that we used to have when navigation was poor at best. Our a/c are within a couple of feet of where they say they are. This would open up alot more airspace.
If you aint got the technology onboard then you would get the delay until atc has room for you.
Granted airlines may overschedule at certain times of the day but the airport can handle alot more then ATC is putting out if they just got more modernized.
WorldTraveler From United States, joined Aug 2003, 4983 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
The issue is not slot controls; they exist around the world.
The problem with this proposal is that it takes slots from one carrier and allows the government to turn around and sell them to someone else. If that doesn't give you serious concerns about your property rights, then you deserve everything the US government will do to you.
CO and DL both came out with press releases today opposing the slot auction. Hopefully, this can all be tied up in court until the Bush Administration is thrown out until another bunch of bureaucrats.
There was another tidbit in DL's "As always, Delta aircraft are in top operational condition...." Wanna guess which of its JFK network competitors that was targeted towards?
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
Quoting Adxmatt (Reply 11): We also need to address the stone age technology of our ATC System. There is NO REASON why EWR/JFK/LGA should be experience 2 1/2 hour delays today due to 600ft cielings and 2 miles vis in light rain!!! What is going to happen when we get some Thunderstorms?
3 1/2 to 4 hour delays. And heck, it doesn't even take a thunderstorm.
The problems with slot controls for NYC are twofold: they'll increase prices by limiting supply and they'll be uncompetitive.
1) They'll increase prices by limiting supply. Let's take my favorite example (because I've done the research) and that is NYC-SFO. Not including SJC and OAK and not including code-shares, there are at least 40 flights daily on that route. The last time I counted it out based on manufacturers' recommended two-class layouts, that worked out to about 5,000 seats (+/-500? Just a guess). Most airlines use A320's, A319's, and 737's on this route. AA uses a few 767's and UA, DL, and CO use some 757's. Now, imagine if instead of 40 A320's flying, it becomes 15 A320's flying. Those seats will become like diamonds.
2) It's anticompetitive. If you give, say DL five slots daily on a route, and UA five slots daily on a route and B6 five slots daily on a route, and UA five slots daily on that route, what happens when someone else wants to move in and see if they can't win customers over with better service? They can't because they have to beg and plead competing carriers for slots. And if you have a slot, then with limited supply, you can simply limit the number of seats and charge a shyte-ton for crappy service. After all, what do you have to lose?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): Now, the FAA could, in theory step in in a different way and say that they will only clear X flights per hour, and then let the airport figure out how to handle it (which is what they were initially talking about).
That's one interesting idea. Ultimately, it's just passing the buck on the particulars, but it's a way of adding more local control. It does nothing to encourage competition, other than a bidding war.
In my opinion, the free market, when balanced with certain regulation to keep things from going totally bazonkers, can be a wonderful thing.
So make a rule that on flights of over a certain distance, a certain minimum size aircraft must be used. Do you know that UA actually flies RJ's from IAD to JFK? That's NUTS. You could also base minimum size on the population of the destination city.
So in other words: if you are flying JFK/EWR to SFO, you are doing it in an aircraft with minimum 350 seats. Medium-to-long range flight (6 hours). Massive traffic. It should be flown with about 17 747's and about 14 A380's. I could even buy 21-23 773s. But it would reduce traffic significantly along the route. Why? Because airlines want to serve the route, but if they find out that they have to use a 350 seat plane, they have to fill it. And if they want to fill it, then they have to compete with other carriers. And someone's plane is going to fly empty and they are going to pull out of the market or code-share with another carrier. Or they won't want to devote VLA's to it and code-share. Either way, size floors would stop the "3 flights an hour to a 3000 mile-distant destination." And it would make airlines compete for customers without relying on frequency as their selling point.
SHUPirate1 From United States, joined Sep 2003, 3502 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): Do you know that UA actually flies RJ's from IAD to JFK?
Did you know that Independence Air, at startup, flew a regional jet EVERY HOUR between IAD and JFK? Did you also know that, before Independence Air's startup, Atlantic Coast flew J-41's for UA from IAD to JFK?
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
WorldTraveler From United States, joined Aug 2003, 4983 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
and then you get into the whole debate whether private planes which carry far fewer peopl than a J41 should be allowed to fly into NYC airspace if RJs are not permitted.
The reality is that the market will fix the capacity issue in NYC because fuel prices do not support RJ flying anymore. Airlines are not going to quit flying their RJs and abandon their slots but they will replace those RJ flights with more economical or larger aircraft as soon as they can. CO is already replacing RJs with Q400s while DL and CO are both upgauging aircraft to get better use of the available slots.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2006, 172 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 22503 posts,