Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
If EWR operations can become a disaster at the drop of a hat, why would other carriers schedule more flights there? It's not like they don't know what they'd be dealing with.
Because a "disaster" at their outstation has very little impact on their overall network. The "disaster" always hits the affected airport's hub carrier(s) much harder. They can take advantage of the extra revenue on the majority of days that aren't "disasters" and cancel a handful of flights on the days that are.
When the FAA cuts EWR's operations by 60% for multiple days in a row, schedule trimming isn't going to make much difference. The problems causing such a drastic reduction have to be addressed.
Originally Posted by
prestonh
Opens crew bases away from ewr which rely on commuting to staff the lines and irrops.
A larger number of EWR-based pilots and F/As live in Florida. One of the ideas behind the Florida bases is to have fewer crewmembers commuting from Florida to EWR.
Has a scheduling center/system which went offline during irrops
I have not heard any of such outage and I was flying in the middle of it. What I have heard was schedulers working 16-hour shifts and the scheduling departments running at 130% staffing levels.
Originally Posted by
moondog
This is why suggested that UA could run its slot reduction plan by a government agency (I thought Port Authority, but it doesn't matter) that has the ability to compel other carriers to put on the breaks.
United, and other large airlines, are in constant contact with regulators, the FAA, and the ATC command center in D.C. The Network Operations Center (NOC) in Chicago has an ATC desk that coordinates real-time with ATC to work solutions to bottlenecks and minimize system disruption.