A321T

[topDawg]

 
Good point.  There are so many factors that play into the LGA-LAX scenario it's amazing.  
 
I really do think the only narrow-body airplane that can consistently do that job today is the 757. 

I think if an airline has the highest rated engines (27K) and the high MTOW option the 737-700 and A319 can do it. 

 

[nycbusdriver]

I think if an airline has the highest rated engines (27K) and the high MTOW option the 737-700 and A319 can do it. 

 
Doubt it, but maybe.  Again, it's not only the power to get it airborne that counts, it's the brakes to get a heavy weight airplane to stop before Flushing Bay if there is a high-speed abort.

 

[FWAAA]

Good point.  There are so many factors that play into the LGA-LAX scenario it's amazing.  
 
I really do think the only narrow-body airplane that can consistently do that job today is the 757.

The main reason that I believe that a lightly loaded 738 (a premium-heavy 80-85 total seats) could do it is because AA is currently flying normally-configured 738s with 160 seats from DCA to LAX nonstop, and the DCA runway is less than 200 feet longer than LGA and DCA-LAX is almost as far as LGA-LAX. I don't know what kind of weight restrictions are imposed on those flights, but if they were severe, then I'd think that AA would fly a 757 instead.
In any event, I don't think it's a likely scenario for the next several decades.

 

[700UW]

Well Airbus did with a A320 can they do it to the A321?
 

 

[nycbusdriver]

The main reason that I believe that a lightly loaded 738 (a premium-heavy 80-85 total seats) could do it is because AA is currently flying normally-configured 738s with 160 seats from DCA to LAX nonstop, and the DCA runway is less than 200 feet longer than LGA and DCA-LAX is almost as far as LGA-LAX. I don't know what kind of weight restrictions are imposed on those flights, but if they were severe, then I'd think that AA would fly a 757 instead.
In any event, I don't think it's a likely scenario for the next several decades.

 
I agree it is probably not likely for some time, if ever.  As I mentioned before, the Port Authority has been "reviewing" the restriction for decades now.  I think they fly this rumor every couple of years just to keep themselves in the news, and make sure everyone knows just how important they are.  I'm sure the Port Authority has a Special Deputy Commissioner for Publicity Stunts (with 7 figure salary) who needs to do this every 20-22 months to justify his job.
 
I've said that the airplanes will do it with nobody onboard, so I would be curious to know what type of loads and restrictions (if any) are used out of DCA to LAX in the 737.  Great circle route is only 138 miles different.

 

[WorldTraveler]

let's also remember that EWR was a much larger part of the NYC airports than LGA and JFK until a few years ago.

Other than DL's attempt to get the PANYNJ to allow DL to operate LGA-SLC, I'm not sure there has been a concerted effort or a recognition that LGA could really benefit.

further, the arguments about insufficient terminals does not apply to DL because DL's terminals already are larger than the others.

and LGA DID host a number of widebody flights until not that long ago.

it was 9/11 that actually saw the major reduction of widebodies at LGA.

even if widebodies don't return, 757s are a big step up in capacity.

let's also remember that this is not just about pulling traffic from JFK but could result in JFK capacity being replaced to operate other routes and for LGA to better use its airspace - which means more revenues for the PANYNJ since LGA still has a high percentage of regional jets.

this isn't the slam dunk case either way but it is far more compelling of a case than it has been in a very long time

 

[Overspeed]

Bloomberg
 
What's Stopping Flights From LGA
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/what-s-stopping-laguardia-flights-from-going-farther-west-than-denver?hootPostID=dfd0c388df2e7da69d3907fc72e218fe

 

[jimntx]

I have friends who live in Queens south of LGA.  They and their neighbors are already planning to protest any additional flying from LGA--a la residents of Orange County and the environs of Love Field, Dallas.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and the two main reasons according to the article are 1. facilities and 2. fear of loss of service to smaller cities

1. LGA has had D10 and L10 service before... larger than the 757s that will likely fly most LGA transcon service. The issue is that LGA is congested with other traffic. Airlines will simply have to use their facilities to maximize revenue which might mean providing room to operate larger aircraft at the expense of smaller aircraft.

basic economics of choice.

2. B6 flies to many smaller cities from JFK. If airlines cut smaller city service from LGA, the service will likely result in more seats from JFK and probably at lower prices.

also, basic economics.

it is also possible that carriers - esp. AA and DL - will just use larger aircraft and fewer frequencies to LGA fro those smaller cities to avoid seat losses.

 

[commavia]

Did anyone else catch what AA's President Scott Kirby said Tuesday at an investor conference about the A321T and how it continues to contribute positively to AA's performance?
 
"... our customers love it ... it's helping us with corporate accounts ... because we have customers who we don't have corporate accounts with but they have executives who want to fly on the transcon product and we can use that to get ourselves on the shelf with them to fly the Shuttle or fly other markets, so it's been a huge success ..."
 
Hmmm ...

 

[WorldTraveler]

nobody has ever doubted it is a high quality product.

but nothing here speaks to its profitability.


and if the transcon product increases revenue in other markets, it should be obvious.

for the most recent DOT quarter, US/AA in LGA-BOS/DCA had a 51% passenger share but a 48.5% revenue share.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the perimeter restrictions were to be lifted at LGA, one factor has not surfaced in this discussion.  If there is additional 757 (or larger) service, it may very well have an impact either on the number of slots, or the length of delays.  Right now, ATC handles most airplanes with 3 mile separation on approach.  The 757 and heavier airplanes require that separation to be 5 miles.  

 

[FWAAA]

If the perimeter restrictions were to be lifted at LGA, one factor has not surfaced in this discussion.  If there is additional 757 (or larger) service, it may very well have an impact either on the number of slots, or the length of delays.  Right now, ATC handles most airplanes with 3 mile separation on approach.  The 757 and heavier airplanes require that separation to be 5 miles.

Very good point. Larger airplanes don't always equal more (overall) capacity. More capacity per flight, of course, but perhaps not more throughput from the airport's point of view.

 

[topDawg]

 
Doubt it, but maybe.  Again, it's not only the power to get it airborne that counts, it's the brakes to get a heavy weight airplane to stop before Flushing Bay if there is a high-speed abort.

Not saying you are wrong
but delta does SNA-ATL with 737-700s and that runway is shorter than LGA. Distance is about the same. (and UA does SNA-EWR with the 73G too.) 
If the 73W can do an abort at SNA I would think it could do one with more space at LGA, unless somehow I am wrong. 

 

[nycbusdriver]

Not saying you are wrong
but delta does SNA-ATL with 737-700s and that runway is shorter than LGA. Distance is about the same. (and UA does SNA-EWR with the 73G too.) 
If the 73W can do an abort at SNA I would think it could do one with more space at LGA, unless somehow I am wrong. 

 
As I said previously, the fuel loads eastbound are significantly less than westbound.  Shorter runways on the west coast are not the problem.  Put SNA-length runways in EWR, or ATL, and it wouldn't work.  And that's why LGA won't work...because its runways re comparable to SNA in length, or lack thereof.