NYC-WAS - RJ only??
Jul 31, 2014, 4:22 pm
#46
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
I believe the unofficial motto for short-range flights out of Newark is "an hour in the air, an hour on the tarmac waiting in line".
Cramped seats aren't any more comfortable sitting on the ground than in the air. With the usual boarding a half hour before scheduled pullback, you're in that seat for 1:45 minimum for a one-hour flight. Ground holds and/or long lines at the runway mean you're easily at the 2:15 mark and longer on flights that are less than an hour in the air.
Cramped seats aren't any more comfortable sitting on the ground than in the air. With the usual boarding a half hour before scheduled pullback, you're in that seat for 1:45 minimum for a one-hour flight. Ground holds and/or long lines at the runway mean you're easily at the 2:15 mark and longer on flights that are less than an hour in the air.
Jul 31, 2014, 5:00 pm
#47
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,129
Although seat comfort and plane size play a role, the far bigger issue on WAS-NYC is irrops handling. RJs get bumped first in this already-congested airspace whenever there is any issue at all.
Jul 31, 2014, 7:35 pm
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,186
AA has pretty much wound down CRJ200s (and ERJ145s) for CR700/900s and E75/90s in the NE and MidWest. US is also moving to the new generation of RJs with 2-cabin service as CRJs are phased out. UAX is so far from being able to dump these cramped artifacts. Hate them cause I always end up with a full back sitting next to me...in half my seat space!
Jul 31, 2014, 8:28 pm
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Yes, I am suggesting that flight frequency ought be reduced.
Your suggestion that "If they didn't offer hourly service they'd lose a lot of similar business to the carrier who did" misses the point. Under proper regulation, no airline would have hourly service. There is no reason one needs multiple flights within any given 90 minute period. A fair mechanism for airlines to bid on the rights to be the one to fly in a given period could be devised.
...
I reject the notion that any greater frequency is needed. Those whose appointment books require more frequency might, IMO, be better served to find ways not to stretch oneself so thin of time.
Your suggestion that "If they didn't offer hourly service they'd lose a lot of similar business to the carrier who did" misses the point. Under proper regulation, no airline would have hourly service. There is no reason one needs multiple flights within any given 90 minute period. A fair mechanism for airlines to bid on the rights to be the one to fly in a given period could be devised.
...
I reject the notion that any greater frequency is needed. Those whose appointment books require more frequency might, IMO, be better served to find ways not to stretch oneself so thin of time.
Next up you'll have the CAB setting the fares, too, right??
Export from Wandering Aramean Travel Tools
Code:
Flight Timetable -- JFK-DCA for date: 20140908 at 00:00 on American Carrier|Flight|From |To |Dep. Time|Arr. Time|Schedule|Equipment|Duration|Exceptions| AA/?? |3370 |JFK |DCA |08:15 |09:38 |1234567 |CR7 |1:23 | | AA/?? |3225 |JFK |DCA |11:05 |12:23 |1234567 |ERD |1:18 | | AA/?? |3378 |JFK |DCA |13:05 |14:23 |1234567 |CR7 |1:18 | | AA |1029 |JFK |DCA |15:42 |17:10 |1234567 |738 |1:28 | | AA/?? |3365 |JFK |DCA |17:29 |18:57 |1234567 |CR7 |1:28 | | AA/?? |3621 |JFK |DCA |21:45 |23:08 |1234567 |CR7 |1:23 | |
Just like my prior post suggested. :-:
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Aug 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts
Jul 31, 2014, 9:18 pm
#52
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
And yet 5 of the 6 daily DCA-JFK flights from AA are still RJs.
Export from Wandering Aramean Travel Tools
Powered by The Wandering Aramean Travel Tools. Click for your free account!
Just like my prior post suggested. :-:
Export from Wandering Aramean Travel Tools
Code:
Flight Timetable -- JFK-DCA for date: 20140908 at 00:00 on American Carrier|Flight|From |To |Dep. Time|Arr. Time|Schedule|Equipment|Duration|Exceptions| AA/?? |3370 |JFK |DCA |08:15 |09:38 |1234567 |CR7 |1:23 | | AA/?? |3225 |JFK |DCA |11:05 |12:23 |1234567 |ERD |1:18 | | AA/?? |3378 |JFK |DCA |13:05 |14:23 |1234567 |CR7 |1:18 | | AA |1029 |JFK |DCA |15:42 |17:10 |1234567 |738 |1:28 | | AA/?? |3365 |JFK |DCA |17:29 |18:57 |1234567 |CR7 |1:28 | | AA/?? |3621 |JFK |DCA |21:45 |23:08 |1234567 |CR7 |1:23 | |
Just like my prior post suggested. :-:
Aug 1, 2014, 8:15 am
#53
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Honolulu / DC
Programs: UA 1K /2mm / Marriott Lifetime Titanium , Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,051
OP here...
because of how I get to NYC, I need to return to IAD, so the train (this time) is less attractive. the 400 with F is works fine. I agree with the posters who note that time BIS is far greater in the plane than the in air flight time....especially at EWR where the gate to wheels up can be an hour or more.
There was never a complaint...just a surprise that the nature of the NYC-WAS market conspires to create an all (non-shuttle) RJ market.
because of how I get to NYC, I need to return to IAD, so the train (this time) is less attractive. the 400 with F is works fine. I agree with the posters who note that time BIS is far greater in the plane than the in air flight time....especially at EWR where the gate to wheels up can be an hour or more.
There was never a complaint...just a surprise that the nature of the NYC-WAS market conspires to create an all (non-shuttle) RJ market.
Aug 1, 2014, 8:53 am
#54
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DCA, IAD (not BWI if I can help it)
Programs: UA 1MM 1K, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Explorist, status-free on AA, AS, B6, DL, WN, Amtrak, etc.
Posts: 1,481
Aug 1, 2014, 9:19 am
#55
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,683
Yes, I am suggesting that flight frequency ought be reduced.
Your suggestion that "If they didn't offer hourly service they'd lose a lot of similar business to the carrier who did" misses the point. Under proper regulation, no airline would have hourly service. There is no reason one needs multiple flights within any given 90 minute period. A fair mechanism for airlines to bid on the rights to be the one to fly in a given period could be devised.
Likewise those rights might be rotated over some period of time. We could start, for example, like this:
6:00a - Airline 1
7:30a - Airline 2
9:00a - Airline 3
10:30a-Airline 1
12:00n-Airline 2
1:30p -Airline 3
3:00p -Airline 1
4:30p -Airline 2
6:00p -Airline 3
7:30p -Airline 1
9:00p - Airline 2
10:30p-Airline 3
Then every period of time (2 weeks, month, quarter) have the airlines rotate. Period 2 would then be
6:00a - Airline 3
7:30a - Airline 1
9:00a - Airline 2
10:30a-Airline 3
12:00n-Airline 1
1:30p -Airline 2
3:00p -Airline 3
4:30p -Airline 1
6:00p -Airline 2
7:30p -Airline 3
9:00p - Airline 1
10:30p-Airline 2
Period 3:
6:00a - Airline 2
7:30a - Airline 3
9:00a - Airline 1
10:30a-Airline 2
12:00n-Airline 3
1:30p -Airline 1
3:00p -Airline 2
4:30p -Airline 3
6:00p -Airline 1
7:30p -Airline 2
9:00p - Airline 3
10:30p-Airline 1
With service still offered every 90 minutes, the airlines would still need to compete for passengers. A person considering the 1:30pm flight might take the 12:00n flight or the 3:00pm if airlines operating those flights provided lower fares or if s/he wanted to earn FF points on the other airline.
I reject the notion that any greater frequency is needed. Those whose appointment books require more frequency might, IMO, be better served to find ways not to stretch oneself so thin of time.
Your suggestion that "If they didn't offer hourly service they'd lose a lot of similar business to the carrier who did" misses the point. Under proper regulation, no airline would have hourly service. There is no reason one needs multiple flights within any given 90 minute period. A fair mechanism for airlines to bid on the rights to be the one to fly in a given period could be devised.
Likewise those rights might be rotated over some period of time. We could start, for example, like this:
6:00a - Airline 1
7:30a - Airline 2
9:00a - Airline 3
10:30a-Airline 1
12:00n-Airline 2
1:30p -Airline 3
3:00p -Airline 1
4:30p -Airline 2
6:00p -Airline 3
7:30p -Airline 1
9:00p - Airline 2
10:30p-Airline 3
Then every period of time (2 weeks, month, quarter) have the airlines rotate. Period 2 would then be
6:00a - Airline 3
7:30a - Airline 1
9:00a - Airline 2
10:30a-Airline 3
12:00n-Airline 1
1:30p -Airline 2
3:00p -Airline 3
4:30p -Airline 1
6:00p -Airline 2
7:30p -Airline 3
9:00p - Airline 1
10:30p-Airline 2
Period 3:
6:00a - Airline 2
7:30a - Airline 3
9:00a - Airline 1
10:30a-Airline 2
12:00n-Airline 3
1:30p -Airline 1
3:00p -Airline 2
4:30p -Airline 3
6:00p -Airline 1
7:30p -Airline 2
9:00p - Airline 3
10:30p-Airline 1
With service still offered every 90 minutes, the airlines would still need to compete for passengers. A person considering the 1:30pm flight might take the 12:00n flight or the 3:00pm if airlines operating those flights provided lower fares or if s/he wanted to earn FF points on the other airline.
I reject the notion that any greater frequency is needed. Those whose appointment books require more frequency might, IMO, be better served to find ways not to stretch oneself so thin of time.
Aug 1, 2014, 11:32 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Aug 1, 2014, 1:19 pm
#57
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Why is this the case? The airlines are competing directly with Amtrak more than other airlines. Amtrak runs at least twice an hour (one Acela, one regional). If airlines cut back to one flight every 90 minutes, as you suggest, I'm sure they'd lose even more of their market share.
With some regulation, airlines and passengers could be required to make due with fewer flights on larger aircraft and still have sufficient airlift to meet travel needs.
As to Amtrak, one could argue that it would be good public policy to move traffic from air to rail. But that is not my point here. I simply suggest that the market has failed to provide efficient service.
My suggestion for airline trading flight times is only to counter arguments raised by those who object to one airline being advantaged to fly during a specific time slot.
I am not suggesting that the CAB be resurrected nor that fares be set, just that we might have more public regulation limiting the over use of the public space used by airlines.
Because the market is imperfect. And no I am not suggesting eliminating the market. I believe that the traveler, airline, and society at large can be best served with a blending of market forces and public interest regulation; I'm only suggesting one small area where the balance might be tweaked.
If we did so, the only true losers might be Embraer, Bombardier, and the oil companies.
Aug 1, 2014, 2:55 pm
#58
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NYC
Programs: DL Platinum, AA Plat Pro, Bonvoy Lifetime Platinum, JetBlue Mosaic 3, Amtrak Select
Posts: 966
I've had 3 NYC to DC flight cancellations. Last one involved being stuck on the Tarmac for 90 minutes, then waiting an hour for cancellation, then me hopping on an Amtrak.
Unless I have an urgent early AM meeting where I can only leave NYC day of, it is the train, and more specifically, Acela, for me all the time. I've found the leg room in Acela business to be comparable or better than Domestic F
Unless I have an urgent early AM meeting where I can only leave NYC day of, it is the train, and more specifically, Acela, for me all the time. I've found the leg room in Acela business to be comparable or better than Domestic F
Aug 1, 2014, 4:04 pm
#59
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 63
One could reduce the 90 minutes to some other period of time, such as an hour. My underlying point is that the market is serving only the short-term interests of passengers and airlines. It doesn't consider societal interests such as fuel efficiency, air space congestion, and environmental impact.
With some regulation, airlines and passengers could be required to make due with fewer flights on larger aircraft and still have sufficient airlift to meet travel needs.
As to Amtrak, one could argue that it would be good public policy to move traffic from air to rail. But that is not my point here. I simply suggest that the market has failed to provide efficient service.
With some regulation, airlines and passengers could be required to make due with fewer flights on larger aircraft and still have sufficient airlift to meet travel needs.
As to Amtrak, one could argue that it would be good public policy to move traffic from air to rail. But that is not my point here. I simply suggest that the market has failed to provide efficient service.
I'm with you on the other factors, however. Airspace (and airport) congestion is a big problem in this corridor, especially in NYC airports where planes often sit on the tarmac for long periods of time before they can take off. Environmental impact is probably correct, although I'm not too knowledgeable in this area, but I have to assume that bigger planes have a lower environmental impact per person. Another factor you didn't mention, that other posters have, is likelihood of delays/cancellations. Smaller RJs get bumped more often, and are therefore less reliable.
As you suggest, in an ideal world, virtually all of the traffic between NY and DC would shift to the train. Amtrak has its own issues with delays and cancellations, and they probably need to build a dedicated high-speed passenger rail between the two cities. But the cities are so close that there really shouldn't be a need for many flights between the two cities. Acela is already almost as quick, if not as quick depending on where you are going in the cities. I have to imagine that a dedicated high-speed rail between the two cities would be faster than flying in almost all circumstances, as well as more reliable and environmentally friendly.