• Airlines and the NEC

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  by CelesteGood
 
CelesteGood wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:46 pm This is expected since American Airlines will not be able to offer any more profitable flights. No one will use them. The most relevant flights are the ones that are in demand.
But you understand that many people will fly even if they pay a lot. I use business flights 20 %because I always fly on business trips and want to use my bonus miles. American plans temporarily suspend routes between Seattle and London, Los Angeles and Sydney, Dallas, and Santiago, Chile. These are the shortest flights that could be resumed later. The launch between Dallas and Tel Aviv may also be delayed, and the frequency between Miami and Sao Paulo, Brazil, may be reduced.
  by eolesen
 
Not sure what any of those AA routes have to do with the NEC...
  by RandallW
 
I doubt any of the traffic LGA-PHL, LGA-BOS, or PHL-BAL was directed at travelers in the NEC -- instead those flights were about providing access to some other (most likely international) destination through LGA since for most people, driving from somewhere in the vicinity of Philadelphia to somewhere in the vicinity of Queens is just as fast (if not faster) and likely considered to be more convenient than driving to an airport, dealing with TSA, flying, dealing with local transport to get to destination.
  by Ken W2KB
 
RandallW wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:21 am I doubt any of the traffic LGA-PHL, LGA-BOS, or PHL-BAL was directed at travelers in the NEC -- instead those flights were about providing access to some other (most likely international) destination through LGA since for most people, driving from somewhere in the vicinity of Philadelphia to somewhere in the vicinity of Queens is just as fast (if not faster) and likely considered to be more convenient than driving to an airport, dealing with TSA, flying, dealing with local transport to get to destination.
LaGuardia (LGA) prohibits flights to airports in excess of 1,500 miles distant.
  by rcthompson04
 
The Regional Jet feeder segment is still the weakest for the airlines. That is the terminal at Philadelphia that hasn't recovered to pre-pandemic demand.

This matches something we saw in the late 2000s when airlines gutted their regional fleets due to soaring fuel costs. Now you have high fuel and pilot shortages. It is better to stick people on larger planes even if cutting frequency.
  by west point
 
There is a big problem right now for airline short flights. If an airline flies say 600 miles it will take X number of gallons of fuel. As well Y number of flight hours. Now if the same airline takes 3 flights to go 600 miles. It will take 5X gallons of fuel and 6Y number of flight hours.

WHY?? Low altitudes of 200 miles uses much more fuel and in flight hours as well as 3 times the amount of taxi in / out time. The flight crew hours the same. So with cost of fuel and shortage of pilot you can see advantage of cutting out short flights and charging higher per mile fares.
  by eolesen
 
Ken W2KB wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:45 am LaGuardia (LGA) prohibits flights to airports in excess of 1,500 miles distant.
Close but not entirely accurate. The Port Authority limits flights beyond 1500 miles on weekdays, with the exception of DEN (1620 miles) which was grandfathered as it was served prior to the 1500 mile restriction being created.

On Saturdays, longer flights are allowed without restrictions.
  by eolesen
 
west point wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:07 am There is a big problem right now for airline short flights. If an airline flies say 600 miles it will take X number of gallons of fuel. As well Y number of flight hours. Now if the same airline takes 3 flights to go 600 miles. It will take 5X gallons of fuel and 6Y number of flight hours.

WHY?? Low altitudes of 200 miles uses much more fuel and in flight hours as well as 3 times the amount of taxi in / out time. The flight crew hours the same. So with cost of fuel and shortage of pilot you can see advantage of cutting out short flights and charging higher per mile fares.
The determining factor in what flights are being kept and what's being dropped isn't distance, it's potential revenue.

You'll continue to see ridiculously short flights like PHL-JFK, ALB-JFK and MKE-ORD because those short flights are feeding significant revenue into the long distance flights. How that gets balanced out in a regional pilot shortage will be interesting to watch.
  by Ken W2KB
 
eolesen wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:54 pm
Ken W2KB wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:45 am LaGuardia (LGA) prohibits flights to airports in excess of 1,500 miles distant.
Close but not entirely accurate. The Port Authority limits flights beyond 1500 miles on weekdays, with the exception of DEN (1620 miles) which was grandfathered as it was served prior to the 1500 mile restriction being created.

On Saturdays, longer flights are allowed without restrictions.
Good points! Also, runway length (7,000 feet) and maximum weight of aircraft allowed concerns also factor into types of aircraft and thus utility / potential destination of flights from LGA. By way of comparison, Newark Liberty Airport in NJ has 11,000 foot runways and the allowable gross weight capacity of the runways is about three times higher than LaGuardia so essentially any aircraft can utilize Newark.
  by eolesen
 
True as to the general utility of EWR (and JFK) over LGA, but aircraft and engine technology have long eliminated LGA's runway length and takeoff performance as a limiting factor.

West coast flights such as DCA-SNA and DCA-SEA have been operated with 737NG's and 757's for years. The longest runway at DCA is only 100 ft longer than LGA's.... If it can fly out of DCA, it can probably fly out of LGA... Pretty certain that either AA or UA had operated a Saturday LGA-SAN in the not too distant past.

The perimeter rule is all about protecting JFK... Few airlines choose JFK over LGA, especially if you're fighting for the local NYC market. United pulled out of JFK for a number of years, and just only recently resumed flying transcons to SFO and LAX (which duplicates services at their larger EWR operation).

Bringing it back to the NEC... LGA and DCA are scarce resources, and using up a dozen slots and gates to offer hourly service just isn't needed if you can walk up to take a train. So they've used them for other routes where they can make some money.

But I suspect that's been a short lived bubble. Advances in video conferencing and companies moving away from Manhattan offices have eliminated a lot of the need to do day trips between the two centers. Time will tell if Acela ever recovers from COVID.
  by west point
 
LGA weight limit is very well confusing to non airline persons but we understand. Runway 4 - 22 and 13-31 have the north parts of each runway on stilts over the water. The taxxiway and runway for the overwater parts are limited not only as to gross weight but also the weight distribution of an aircraft. There are airplanes that have their landing gear closer to each other than other aircraft. So ppossiblity the allowable taxi weight for airplane #1 on the potion over the water can be less than #2 even though #1 has a higher max taxi weight.

Now the stupid part. Those weight limits are only for aircraft that take off on 13 or 22. Does not apply to other ends. However if an overweight plane takes off on say 4 and aborts takeoff and has to go to the north end that is allowed. Guess occasional overweight is allowed in that case.???
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. West Point; come on out! You are an airline pilot.

I'm "Captain" of my MS Flight Simulator; next month, I'll play "First Officer" from 1L, but for the return I'll get "promoted" to "Captain" from 3A.

I guess as a passenger, even if I have knowledge of the fundamentals of flight, cannot appreciate the perils of an approach to KLGA Rwy 31, but as a passenger, the approach over The Harbor then the Left turn following the NY skyline "from the Battery to the Bronx", then taking a heading of 310 over the Mets ballpark (named for whoever has naming rights) and landing on that 7500ft of 31, is all "awesome".

So much for OT from me; understand if this is killed.
  by west point
 
Actually landing on 31 at LGA is easy from north or south for visual approaches. You come over the initial fix at 10k feet throttle idle descend then turn east and circle around to align to 31 .Judicious use of flaps and landing gear there is no noise especially over Shea stadium. Works with all types of aircraft.

If IFR then it is ILS to either 4 or 22.

Now visual landing on 13 avoiding 4 stacks clearance requirements is another matter with very precise profiles. Do not remember them Only did a couple times.
  by eolesen
 
west point wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:17 pm LGA weight limit is very well confusing to non airline persons but we understand. Runway 4 - 22 and 13-31 have the north parts of each runway on stilts over the water. The taxxiway and runway for the overwater parts are limited not only as to gross weight but also the weight distribution of an aircraft. There are airplanes that have their landing gear closer to each other than other aircraft. So ppossiblity the allowable taxi weight for airplane #1 on the potion over the water can be less than #2 even though #1 has a higher max taxi weight.
I've worked as a gate agent as well as worked closely with load planning at the HDQ level, so weight restrictions at LGA are no great mystery.

And yet, I'm looking at old SSIM data showing that LGA-LAX, LGA-SEA, LGA-SFO, LGA-MTJ and LGA-AUA have all been operated within the last decade using 319, 737 and 757 equipment. Perhaps those operations were runway limited or always weight restricted.... but there's also no reason you can't operate a service like that with a permanent weight restriction in place. I know there were several airports in South America that BN, EA and AA operated with permanent restrictions in place...