DL/LCC Swap Slots At LGA/DCA
- Thread starter chucky
- Start date
Airlinelifer
Senior
- Jan 10, 2008
- 333
- 142
I'm wondering if those slots were the old Eastern slots NW acquired in the early 90's. That along with the "rotunda" concourse/gates. NW made a feeble attempt to build DCA after the purchase of those slots, building up the station and then just as fast leasing them out.
From time to time we are given lapel pins..
I remember back in 1989 when the CDG-Paris flight began, we were given a lapel pin to wear on our uniforms commemorating the new service.. given to us at In Flight.
That also happened when they started routes in and out of DC..we were given lapel pins as well..
It was early 1991, around spring time.
I am almost 99 percent sure some of those routes came from Eastern because around that time period..1988-1991 a lot of Eastern Flight Attendants were coming over to Northwest and they use to talk about their former routes.
A lot of the former Eastern Flight Attendants ended up at the NW BOS base, at least they were there early 1990's from what I can remember..
FutureUScapt
Veteran
- Dec 1, 2005
- 600
- 13
Jim,
Instinctively that makes sense (if we are indeed still currently leasing them from NW), but the US press release has stated that total flights will rise from 187 to 229, which makes it sound as if these are 42 entirely new slot pairs. Of course, the US press release could always be incorrect...
what you need to figure is simply.. what is the number of new nonstop flights that will be created and depart/arrive from the hub to new cities that are not currently being served? because existing slots that are currently being leased.. even though are currently being utilized.. yet will be transferred.. would not necessary be considered new..
does the slot transfer create 42 new nonstop departures or does it take into consideration, existing cities or 42 new destinations? or does the transfer simply eliminate the need to actually lease a slot and that would equal a cost savings.
(a recent cost savings absent a future lease payment can also be considered..new)
daily departures can rise with additional slots, however the same can happen by adding more seats with a larger aircraft.
so lets say you have 42 slots, does that mean there is possibly 14 new destinations that will offer service from the hub 3 times a day (for a total of 42 slot pairs), or let say..is it 14 new destinations that will offer service 2 times a day, for a total number of 28 slots pairs, while the remaining 14 slots may have been leased but will now reflect a cost savings minus of a lease payment.. or simply will it be 42 new destinations making it all "new"?
(you know?)
I wonder how many new nonstops to new cities will be created at the DCA hub?
(if approved)
$0. The LGA slots swapped are express/commuter slots and not ones available for mainline flights, meaning they are of no value to WN given WN only flies 737s.
What is an express/commuter slot 50/60/70/80/90/100/120/130/140 seat aircraft?
ALPA has been trying to figure it out for years
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #39
While I don't know the answer off the top of my head, it's a limit set by the airport authority (PANYNJ in this case).
Since it's public information, I doubt that ALPA has been "trying to figure it out for years." What I presume you mean is something completely different and separate from LGA or DCA express/commuter slot aircraft seating limits, but rather scope limits for pilot contracts.
Jim
ALPA as a whole is all over the place as to the terms of express/commuter/maineline aircraft seating limit.Can these slots be flown by E190/E170/E175/CRJ900?
If I recall correctly the commuter/express flights were put in place by some politician to services small communities. What ever happen to the lottery thing with the LGA slots? If the Fairly new express/commuter slots were to go bye-bye the ATC situation would get better.LGA needs ATC relief
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #41
While the complete slot program at LGA/DCA were to control the number of operations - at least keep total ops in the ballpark of what the airports could handle on a good day - my recollection of the separate express/commuter slots is that it was a way to preserve service to smaller markets also.
Off the top of my head I don't know the size limit placed on the express/commuter slots at either airport. I have a memory of US getting the DCA authorities to increase the size limit so the E170's could be operated there without having to use mainline slots, but I wouldn't even swear to that.
As for ALPA and scope, you have to think of ALPA as a relatively loose collection of individual pilot unions - contrary to some of the "ALPA made me do it" you read on the US forum in particular. Each MEC has pretty wide latitude to make decisions within the broad limits set by ALPA's Constitution and ByLaws. ALPA almost never refuses to sign an agreement between an airline's pilots and management if the MEC and/or pilots ratify the agreement - the last time that happened that I know of was with one of the smaller turboprop US feeders in the late 80's/early 90's and the pilots were mad that ALPA wouldn't sign off on what the pilots had agreed to. That's why it seems like "ALPA is all over the place" on scope.
Jim
Off the top of my head I don't know the size limit placed on the express/commuter slots at either airport. I have a memory of US getting the DCA authorities to increase the size limit so the E170's could be operated there without having to use mainline slots, but I wouldn't even swear to that.
As for ALPA and scope, you have to think of ALPA as a relatively loose collection of individual pilot unions - contrary to some of the "ALPA made me do it" you read on the US forum in particular. Each MEC has pretty wide latitude to make decisions within the broad limits set by ALPA's Constitution and ByLaws. ALPA almost never refuses to sign an agreement between an airline's pilots and management if the MEC and/or pilots ratify the agreement - the last time that happened that I know of was with one of the smaller turboprop US feeders in the late 80's/early 90's and the pilots were mad that ALPA wouldn't sign off on what the pilots had agreed to. That's why it seems like "ALPA is all over the place" on scope.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #43
It's kind of murky. In the past they have been considered the airline's property when it came to buying/selling them but the airline would forfeit them for non-use and the FAA/airport could reclaim them for redistribution to new entrants. With all the talk about doing something to alleviate the delay situation no telling what will happen in the future - the FAA has talked about a plan to reduce the number of slots by canceling some of each airline's. So in some ways they're the airlines property and in other ways they're not.
Jim
markkus757
Veteran
- Jul 26, 2004
- 598
- 1
Has there been any actual updates on the slot transaction? Has the DOT/DOJ said anything about it yet?
Similar threads
