I guess the FAA isn't a fan of the Dash-8s flying LGA-PHL and LGA-BWI all day, given their latest proposed rule on LGA slot restrictions. They specifically highlighted those US-dominated routes in calling for larger aircraft on routes to medium and large "hubs," and for its purpose the FAA classifies BWI as a hub (even though it hasn't been a US hub for a number of years).
I guess the bigger question for US becomes what is the long-term plan at LGA? Obviously, the shuttle and the Colgan props will remain in place, but what about the high-frequency RJ routes to larger markets? For example, do they throw a Mesa CRJ900 on LGA-RIC when they lose the Chatauqua E145s to CO to make the FAA happy or do they just cede the NYC-RIC route to B6, DL and CO? (Not that anyone would be happy to see the combination of Mesa and LGA - could you imagine the delays!?!?!) It doesn't seem like US has a spare 757 or A321 to waste on LGA-PHL to make the numbers work out under the proposed restrictions.
From my perspective, it would be great if they threw a 737 or A319 on LGA-RIC, but I just don't see that happening, and surely not multiple frequencies.

I can't find the article but there was a response from USAirways that it would not be a problem for the airline to increase to average plane size to fit the new requirements.

Perhaps a larger mix of Embreaer 170/175/190. And a reduction of 50 seaters. I doubt any airline including US will give up any slots.

Maybe someone high up at the FAA is sick of the CRJ's too. :p

I found it. US Airways response in the fifth paragraph.

FAA Seeks Higher Average Aircraft Size At LaGuardia (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aviationdaily_story.jsp?id=news/FAA08276.xml)

Apparently US Airways already has plans to increase capacity at LGA so they say they will not have a problem with the requirement.

I think it has more to do with AA running ERJs between DCA-LGA-BOS all day than US running a few Dashes between the two airports. Prop operations generally aren't complained about very much on this type of issues because of the versatility of them. In many cases turboprop operations can increase the number of flights that are able to operate from an airport, as our departures are used to space the jet departures using the various transitions out of the area.

That being said, if the FAA decided that every LGA flight should be on a 757, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Our LGA domicile is the biggest problem in the system. Wouldn't bother many of us if it went away.

Dash,

You burst my bubble a little bit - I first read this thread thinking that I might escape turboprops between CHO-LGA :) I know they're versatile and safe but the turbulence gets to me.

Flying on one tomorrow night LGA-BTV and looking forward to that trip, though.



I think it has more to do with AA running ERJs between DCA-LGA-BOS all day than US running a few Dashes between the two airports. Prop operations generally aren't complained about very much on this type of issues because of the versatility of them. In many cases turboprop operations can increase the number of flights that are able to operate from an airport, as our departures are used to space the jet departures using the various transitions out of the area.

That being said, if the FAA decided that every LGA flight should be on a 757, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Our LGA domicile is the biggest problem in the system. Wouldn't bother many of us if it went away.

Except for the aformentioned advanteges of the Dash 8, it only makes sense to increase the average number of seats per aircraft operation when you have such a capacity limited airport. As the air system grows, I wouldn't be surprised to see them do this other places.

I think it has more to do with AA running ERJs between DCA-LGA-BOS all day than US running a few Dashes between the two airports. Prop operations generally aren't complained about very much on this type of issues because of the versatility of them. In many cases turboprop operations can increase the number of flights that are able to operate from an airport, as our departures are used to space the jet departures using the various transitions out of the area.

US express has more flight ex-LGA than mainline. There was a time when it was mainline metal all around both piers and a few express flights. Now it's maybe 3 or 4 gates at the end of the shuttle pier for mainline and everything else is express.

US is far worse about this at LGA than any other carrier.

That being said, if the FAA decided that every LGA flight should be on a 757, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Our LGA domicile is the biggest problem in the system. Wouldn't bother many of us if it went away.

I think the FAA wants to whack down on the number of 50 and smaller seat aircraft at LGA to move more people thru the same number of slots. They tried the slot limitations and that did not get the message across.

IFrom my perspective, it would be great if they threw a 737 or A319 on LGA-RIC, but I just don't see that happening, and surely not multiple frequencies.

There's easily enough traffic from RIC-NYC to support mainline US service, both business (all the financial services firms and big banks here) and leisure (thousands upon thousands of ex-NYers like me who have moved south for cheap housing and better schools). But the problem for US is, thanks to B6 the route isn't as high-yield as it used to be.

It'd be much wiser IMHO to have 3-4 mainline flights per day than the 8 or so RJ flights currently from RIC-LGA. But airlines don't seem to have much common sense. :)

So what kind of flights do you all think are going to get upgraded? I have my fingers crossed on RDU-LGA. After all, it did used to be all 737/320! :)

PS - last time I was ther, it had been a couple years since I had flown US into LGA (I had been going AA). Boy was it a sad sight. At 7:30, there were a couple of mainline flights and maybe 10 Express flights. Terminal was really empty. The shuttle area with magazines was totally in desrepair and had no magazines. I couldn't tell if the upgrades they had been doing c2002-2003 had ever been completed. First class security and check-in were closed (lines though weren't that bad). The whole emptiness was just terrible though. I remember when I always used to enjoy flying into that terminal.

It'd be much wiser IMHO to have 3-4 mainline flights per day than the 8 or so RJ flights currently from RIC-LGA. But airlines don't seem to have much common sense. :)

Common sense in short supply throughout the industry (and TSA).

At peak times...say 1700-1900, it would make sense to set a minimum aircraft size (100 seats?) for a place like LGA.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/09/01/Navigation/177/208794/US+Airways+adjusts+fleet+plan+to+prepare+for+LaGua rdia.html
US Airways adjusts fleet plan to prepare for LaGuardia restrictions
By Mary Kirby
US Airways is to adjust its fleet plan in preparation for the US Federal Aviation Administration’s new congestion relief scheme at New York LaGuardia airport, which will reduce the number of small regional jet services at the airport.

In an employee newsletter dated 31 August, US Airways senior vice president of planning and alliances Andrew Nocella admits the FAA’s proposed rule “will have an impact on how we operate”.......