Newsstand - FAA wants to confiscate LGA slots from legacy airlines, give them to LCCs

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/transportation/10331072.html

With 550 daily departures to 72 destinations spread among 13 airlines, New York's LaGuardia Airport would appear to be a very competitive place.

But the federal government says it isn't, primarily because of a shortage of low-fare carriers. As a result, the Federal Aviation Authority has proposed new regulations that could lead to the confiscation of slots, those assigned takeoff and landing positions that enable airlines to operate at the congested facility.

[...]

Two proposals allow for slot confiscations. One provides that starting in 2010, the FAA could claim up to 10% of the slots held by carriers and reallocate them based on a so-far undetermined formula.

Another represents an effort to ensure that bigger airplanes use the slots at LaGuardia, allowing confiscations if carriers do not meet a target for the average number of seats per aircraft.

[...]

The basic problem with LGA is unfixable. At first glance, it makes sense to use bigger planes making more efficient use of the slots. But LGA will always lose half the slots on a windy day. All you accomplish with bigger planes is you have more people delayed when the weather is bad. Anyway, that's how I see it. :)

If they could make better use of JFK and have fast transportation to Manhattan, that would be wonderful. The way it is now, everybody wants to go to LGA because it's closer to Manhattan, but their flights can't even take off because of the ground holds that result from wind at LGA. It's all these passengers demanding to do the impossible that makes it impossible. :)

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/transportation/10331072.html

With 550 daily departures to 72 destinations spread among 13 airlines, New York's LaGuardia Airport would appear to be a very competitive place.

But the federal government says it isn't, primarily because of a shortage of low-fare carriers. As a result, the Federal Aviation Authority has proposed new regulations that could lead to the confiscation of slots, those assigned takeoff and landing positions that enable airlines to operate at the congested facility.

[...]

Two proposals allow for slot confiscations. One provides that starting in 2010, the FAA could claim up to 10% of the slots held by carriers and reallocate them based on a so-far undetermined formula.

Another represents an effort to ensure that bigger airplanes use the slots at LaGuardia, allowing confiscations if carriers do not meet a target for the average number of seats per aircraft.

[...]
The title is misleading. I don't disagree that more LCCs could get into LGA as a result if this ruling is adopted as is, but it is also to manage congestion. I suspect there is a whole story behind this and don't forget, ORD implemented a new high density ruling recently. So, it is possible the FAA is trying different things to see what works best and then implement nationwide at congested airports.

The basic problem with LGA is unfixable. At first glance, it makes sense to use bigger planes making more efficient use of the slots. But LGA will always lose half the slots on a windy day. All you accomplish with bigger planes is you have more people delayed when the weather is bad. Anyway, that's how I see it.

If they could make better use of JFK and have fast transportation to Manhattan, that would be wonderful. The way it is now, everybody wants to go to LGA because it's closer to Manhattan, but their flights can't even take off because of the ground holds that result from wind at LGA. It's all these passengers demanding to do the impossible that makes it impossible.

Well, in theory at least, the number of pax should be the same -- just less planes to have to deal with.

The basic problem with LGA is unfixable. At first glance, it makes sense to use bigger planes making more efficient use of the slots. But LGA will always lose half the slots on a windy day. All you accomplish with bigger planes is you have more people delayed when the weather is bad. Anyway, that's how I see it. :)

If they could make better use of JFK and have fast transportation to Manhattan, that would be wonderful. The way it is now, everybody wants to go to LGA because it's closer to Manhattan, but their flights can't even take off because of the ground holds that result from wind at LGA. It's all these passengers demanding to do the impossible that makes it impossible. :)

Orginally when they went for funding for the AirTrain the AT was suppose to go not only to the Howard Beach Subway and Jamaica for the LIRR but to LaGuardia and also run straight into Manny on the LIRR tracks. Of cause they didnt use the same gauge as the LIRR tracks so thats not possible, and it still doesnt go to LGA.

Its too costly to go JFK to Jamica then LIRR into the City. they need to come up with a fast train with a stop say at Jamaica Only. And it must cost less then a cab would be to LGA, keep in mind that most folks would still need to take a cab within Manny to get to the Train, so I doubt that its a fesible solution

Looks like the airlines will be pushed toward flying bigger planes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_re_us/congested_laguardia

Well, in theory at least, the number of pax should be the same -- just less planes to have to deal with.Why is that? If you have the same number of slots but use aircraft with more seats you end up with more passengers.

"Another 8 million pax a year".....LOL.....what are they thinking....the place is a mess as it is with the current volume of pax.

Why is that? If you have the same number of slots but use aircraft with more seats you end up with more passengers.

Because the NPRM states that the purpose of the directive is to remove slots to reduce congestion.