pogopossum

If the airlines are using the smaller jets, why aren't they using smaller airports? Why not funnel one of the flights to Teteboro, or Islip, or Trenton, which has no service at all? It won't relieve problems with weather, but would open up space and time at the three majors.

PP

moondog

I don't think wake turbulence is quite as big a deal as you suggest. Based on a quick read through wikipedia (usual disclaimers apply), we're talking about an extra minute or two on takeoff/landing.

Moving on, I have a hard time believing that a 757 requires 3.6x as much time/airport resources than a CRJ.

majorwibi

Because you are still using the same basic air traffic corridors for arrivals and departures to anywhere in the NE corridor. Its why opening up the military corridor did some benefit a few holiday seasons ago.

Robert Leach

It seems to me that the way to make this work for everyone during weather episodes is to assign takeoff slots based on anticipated runway availability and come up with standardized timing for de-icing and taxi so that a flight can be pushed back at the right time to make the takeoff slot time without a huge delay.

Example:

Thunderstorms move in over ATL. Meteorologists say the storms will be over with by 9:00 p.m. ATC begins assigning takeoff slots. DL 001 is at 9:00 p.m. DL 002 is at 9:02 p.m. DL 003 is at 9:04 p.m. Etc. The taxiways are kept clear. There is an established length of time to taxi to the runway from a given gate. DL 001 has a boarding time of 40 minutes (start of boarding until the door shuts), a push back time of 5 minutes, an engine start time of two minutes, and a taxi time of 8 minutes. A buffer of 5 minutes is added in. Therefore, for a 9:00 p.m. takeoff slot, DL 001 will begin boarding at 8:00 p.m. and push back precisely at 8:40 p.m.

If you keep the taxiways clear of a congo line, then you can reliably predict taxi times. The great unknown now is that you never know how long it will take you to reach the end of the runway from the gate, because you can't predict how long the line in front of you will be and how fast it will move. This thing of dispatching all of these flights from the gate and having them wait in a line is the most frustrating part for everyone.

With three hours to play with, there has got to be a way to get this done without canceling a bunch of flights, IMO.

AndyTLe

You've forgotten some variables in your example. First, we've all seen that meteorology is more of an art than a science. A storm could be right on top of ATL and the prognosticators could still get it wrong. Secondly, you have to consider both the departing and arriving airports. I, and I know many others, have sat in the penalty box waiting for clearance from the arrival airport. The major factor is the unpredictability of weather. Even if it clears up on the departing end, weather may be an issue along the way or near the arrival airport. In your example, an airline could execute the procedures fully and still be stuck without the ability to take off.

RobertS975

In an ideal world... but in the real world, the thunderstorms do not have to be anywhere near the airport. What happens is that a certain direction is blocked by weather. So ATC may have no problem with flights out of ATL to the Northeast, but flights heading west are blocked, either completely or else forced to all funnel through a narrow opening that limits capacity. As I said in a previous post, out west there is a lot more room for deviations. In the Northeast triangle (a triangle with ATL, ORD and BOS as the three points), there just isn't extra room to deviate.

One reason that gates need to be vacated that nobody has mentioned yet is to be available to inbound flights. This is a real issue at almost every busy Delta station, hub or not.

DouglasBoyd

CEO Anderson should not have taken the advice of his PR advisors who actually wrote the piece. As a DL PM I like the new rule that only came about because the airline(s) had no motivation to pay attention to the care of paying customers.

fti

True. And in a recent issue of the Sky magazine, Anderson complained about all the fees and taxes that the governments impose, including the 7.5% federal ticket tax. But he conveniently forgot to mention that his airline was charging most passengers for checking their first and second pieces of luggage, which had been free. And that fee usually ended up being as much as or more than the government-imposed fees.

Bangkok Dave

Actually, it's the smaller aircraft trailing a heavy or large aircraft that requires a longer spacing. A heavy or large aircraft can takeoff or land in the wake vortices of a CRJ with little concern. A CRJ landing or taking off in the wake vortices of a B747 (Heavy) or a B757 (Large) or even another Light aircraft is much more affected so they have a longer spacing time.

exwannabe

The problem I have with ATC here is the inability to "take a number".

I know this sounds simplistic, but it is quite reasonable with some thought.

majorwibi

Yes but you can actually pack CRJs closer to each other than you can with a Heavy or Large which is the point I was making.

StayingHomeIsBetter

Perhaps... but it is more likely a factor of the cumulative wages for staffing 4 MD-90s vs 11 Pringles cans.

StayingHomeIsBetter

Sorry... but I have to believe that the status quo is the lowest cost alternative for the airlines... or at least they perceive it to be.

If there were a lower cost alternative available to the airlines, they would all be clamoring to see it implemented.

For example, evening congestion at major airports (evening coincidentally being the peak thunderstorm time) could be reduced by moving some flights to earlier in the afternoon.

The airlines will say that "we can't do that, all of our PAX want those flights bunched up in the evening"... whereas, I suspect that the truth is more like "our total labor costs will go up if we stretch out the schedule over more of the day."

The airlines will implement the system that maximizes the benefit to them... and rely on the PAX to put up with the chaos caused by the airlines' unwillingness to implement a more customer-focused alternative.

The airlines' unwillingness to address this problem head on was why the DOT elected to step in.

EZE

The issue is that we feel we get something when we pay the airline - the ability to personally travel and/or transport a fairly sizable amount of goods a considerable distance. We also have a lot of choice of whom we select to transport us on most routes.

The taxes on the other hand are imposed by politicians who impose little accountability at FAA/DOT. They've been promising NextGen for a decade, and still can't deliver. If the airlines actually controlled ATC, I might feel differently, but this is just a crazy political blame game, and the folks on here defending the rule have clearly bought the LaHood version of "facts" - but hey, he must be a really smart guy because he sat on some Congressional committee for all those years right? right?

luv2ctheworld

Regardless of what FT'ers view of what this new rule will have, the bottom line is that there will be unintended consequences. The system, and I mean the airline, the scheduling, ATC, the airport infrastructure, etc. is simply not aligned. Any changes will result in something giving.

The whole system needs to be fixed. But sadly that just isn't going to happen.