US Airways nonstop LGA to PHX in the future?
- Thread starter Diamondbacks2004
- Start date
FCYTravis
Senior
Perimeter rules, just like the Wright Amendment, are outdated and unnecessary protectionisms and ought to be abolished. What rational reason is there for allowing people from Denver to fly non-stop to LGA but not people from San Francisco? Why are there four daily non-stop Beechcraft flights from Lebanon, New Hampshire to LaGuardia and zero daily non-stop flights from the second largest city in America, Los Angeles?Well, since LGA has two runways and JFK has four runways, yes, let's repeal the perimeter rule!
Maybe we should repeal the high density rule while we're at it!
Does anyone on this board live in the real world, or am I all by myself?
Makes zero sense at all.
Keep slots, but abolish the perimeter rule. Allow airlines to decide where their slots can best be used. Simple as that.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Nope.
Because Denver was grandfathered since it is a hub.
Because many of the passengers on the LEB flights connect to another US Airways/US Express flight, and that would only make sense at LGA where US operates.
I agree that it is ultimately the slots that limit LGA congestion, but with the perimeter rule, the extra time it takes to reach JFK doesn't adversely affect the short haul flights where travel time is more important. Imagine if the shuttle flights to DCA were out of JFK; Amtrak would win the air vs. train race almost every time.
Yes, theoretically the airlines would do a better job of deciding which flights should get to fly out of LGA and which should be relegated to JFK (such as distance to destination) but personally I have very little faith in airline management to do anything logical. Just look at the carry-on policy; it's insanely generous because "everyone else is doing it".
FCYTravis
Senior
Phoenix is a hub. Los Angeles is a hub. San Francisco is a hub. So, what?
All 19 people on each Beechcraft, generously assuming a 100-percent load factor. You could fit everyone who flies to Lebanon in a day in a single A319 to Phoenix. There is absolutely no harm done to anyone by allowing flights from LGA to PHX or SFO or SEA or LAX.
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
I wonder how much they would have to pad the block time for these flights from LGA, if they were allowed to happen?
allegheny37
Advanced
One of the reasons for the perimeter rules was LGA was meant to be a day trip airport for business travel. As compared to JFK that was international travel.
It has limited parking and only one long term parking lot.
I know things have changed since then but parking is still a problem at LGA due to limited space.
It has limited parking and only one long term parking lot.
I know things have changed since then but parking is still a problem at LGA due to limited space.
SYD is a hub, too. So what?
Are you suggesting that LEB be closed or switched to JFK (makes for crummy connections) so that people can fly non-stop from LGA to PHX rather than going to JFK?
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Have you been to JFK or done the drive....it's a real treat! NOT. Not to mention looks like the dregs of hell.
FCYTravis
Senior
I'm suggesting that if LEB can get four flights daily on 19-seat Beechcraft, there is absolutely zero reason why PHX and LAS should not be able to get three flights daily on an Airbus. If the airport's that congested, move some of these podunk 19/34-seat prop flights to PHL, where passengers can connect to far more destinations anyway.
Yes, LGA is that congested. Furthermore, the B1900 (and Saab 340, etc.) can use runways in a configuration that a full size jet cannot (e.g., taking off and turning out of the way of arriving traffic).
In any event, in the case of LEB, the EAS contract is for the flight to go to LGA. You can't just change it to PHL. Besides, it's not like PHL is wide-open; you're just moving people from one problem airport to another.
Note that in non-EAS small markets, PHL is usually the connecting airport and not LGA.
flyingcat
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2005
- 658
- 0
From an efficiency point of view serving small towns at a slot constrained airport is ludiscrous. Only heavy O&D markets should be served from LGA. JFK and EWR have much more space and connectivity that they can better accomodate and fill small props and regional jets.
Eliminate the perimeter rule and the number of mainline flights will increase dramatically. Slots are one thing but perimeter rules are nuts. Let the paying passengers show airlines and the government where they want to go and in what numbers.
If it weren't for the perimeter rule there would proably be more widebodies there.
Eliminate the perimeter rule and the number of mainline flights will increase dramatically. Slots are one thing but perimeter rules are nuts. Let the paying passengers show airlines and the government where they want to go and in what numbers.
If it weren't for the perimeter rule there would proably be more widebodies there.
The question is not whether slots can be obtained; US Airways has more than enough. They had 113 mainline/Shuttle departures back in mid-2001 and are down to about 50 now. The real issue is having the perimeter rule modified, and the Port Authority can't do that for just one airline. Any changes to the perimeter rule have to be equitable to all airlines, so expanding the perimeter to include PHX and LAS would also allow service from SLC, AUS, SAT, ABQ, BOI, etc. It wouldn't be surprising to see ATA shift the use of some or all of its LGA slots to PHX and/or LAS if the perimeter were expanded. You might even see WN apply for new entrant slots (like the ones granted to jetBlue) to be used for routes like LGA-PHX or LGA-LAS.
The beyond-perimeter exemptions granted at DCA are different in that they were legislated by the Congress which directed DoT to select airlines to be granted those exemptions. The proprietary rights of the PANYNJ don't extend to being able to pick and choose which airlines may be allowed to operate beyond perimeter flights.
IMO, this person dosen't know what the heck they're talking about.
HP has coveted their JFK market as well as BOS, BWI, and EWR for years.
They have told us in the past the percentage of revenue these cities generate overall, and it is very heavily lop-sided to the positive.
Sorry can't remember the actual %, but I did file away that these are VERY important cities to the bottom line.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #30
desertgal,
It may be a perception "thing". We in the East are used to higher yields, necessarily since our costs have been about 50% higher than HP's.
For example:
4Q04 HP's yield JFK-PHX was 8.22 cents.
1Q05 it was 9.94 cents.
2Q05 it was 9.99 cents.
3Q05 it was 10.13 cents.
On the East side, those break even at best or lose money with a 100% load factor.
Jim
It may be a perception "thing". We in the East are used to higher yields, necessarily since our costs have been about 50% higher than HP's.
For example:
4Q04 HP's yield JFK-PHX was 8.22 cents.
1Q05 it was 9.94 cents.
2Q05 it was 9.99 cents.
3Q05 it was 10.13 cents.
On the East side, those break even at best or lose money with a 100% load factor.
Jim
