BiggAW

How the heck do you *reliably* get from the front of the airport, through security, and to your gate in 25 minutes? It depends on the airport, but some of them can take 10+ minutes just to walk to the gate. I typically plan to be there 120 minutes ahead, although I can manage about 90 minutes in PVD, since it's a relatively small airport. BRW is a weird one, going there for the second time in a few weeks. There, you don't go through security until the plane in on the tarmac, so you only have to be there like 20 minutes before departure.

Well based on the schedules, a lot of people do. Like I said, an NYC-SF super-express isn't going to decimate the air market, but it would take a nibble, and probably a huge bite out of first class, since those folks aren't cost conscious, but are comfort and experience conscious. It wouldn't do a thing to economy redeyes for people trying to get as many miles in as quickly as possible. But NYC-Chicago. It would wipe out air travel on that route. A true HSR system on that route would beat the airplane, even if you look at direct flights on WN LGA-MDW.

And so all those hotels lined up by the airport exist why?

I just looked it up, and it's 6.5 hours, I thought it was 6, so most transcon US flights wouldn't be considered long-haul. They're pushing the upper limit of medium-haul.

I was comparing if I stayed over at one end or the other and took a flight JFK-SFO or BOS-LAX, something like that. Single direct flight plus hotel.

If we had a good rail system, rail would dominate for trips under 500 miles or so. Up to about 1500 miles, it can be very competitive, the 3000 mile transcons are hard to compete with time wise, although trains could still take a nibble out of the airlines' business, just because they are so much more comfortable. But that competition would also require the same level of connectivity and amenities that airports have, not just a fast train. So big train stations with ample parking, transit, and rental cars available.

Acela is hands down quicker NYC-BOS or NYC-DC, but it wasn't really competing with air travel, because those are utterly absurd flights. It's competing with just jumping in the car and driving, or taking a slower train. If you're in Boston proper, by the time you go to Logan, go through security, get a plane, fly to BWI or Dulles or even DCA, and get back into the city, you may as well have just jumped on the train. And if you're south of the city, and go to RTE instead of PVD, it's that much better. Not to mention the far better experience and far less hassle than flying. Sure, you might be able to get an hour edge on the plane, but it's absolutely not worth the hassle, and in terms of productivity, the person taking Acela would have been far more productive, with Wifi and a nice table on Acela the entire time vs. wasting time going through security, getting on the plane, flying in the plane without a table, etc.

Yes, there are some serious improvements to be made to Acela's route, particularly on the MN NH Line, but even today with the crumbling infrastructure it's running on, it is in a class of it's own.

Not over mainline legacy carriers in most cases.

Apparently you haven't been following all the posts in here. There shouldn't be service other than mainline because regional planes are inefficient and clog up the whole system, where large, efficient mainline jets don't.

The reason is, it's BFE up there, and it's served by DTW, maybe TVC anyway. I've flown there a number of times, to an area near Pellston. I went to the main airport that serves that area, DTW. FNT and GRR have mainline, but they are usually absurdly expensive compared to DTW. You need good competition to make an airport viable, and DTW has WN plus some ULCCs competing with incumbent DL, so that keeps things in check.

The congestion at JFK and LGA is not bogus. People in Westchester have cars. They can drive to Woods Hole and take the boat. That's what they do anyway. They clog up our highways. What is really needed is the return of the Cape Codder, or at least MBTA service to Cape Cod from Providence, connecting to Amtrak trains from NYP. They have a shuttle connection to the ferries at Woods Hole on the Cape Flyer now, but that's coming from the wrong direction to serve people to the south.

For people coming from far away, which is the market those regional flights are serving today, they can fly into PVD, and either take a shuttle to Quonset to pick up a high speed ferry, or just rent a car and drive to Woods Hole. Again, better transit would help things there, but that's how it's served today. People could also fly into BOS and take the Cape Flyer down, and pick up the shuttle to Woods Hole. Again, more frequent and better transit is needed, but the introduction of rail service in the first place is a huge step forwards.

JetBlue might take the cake for idiotic flights. They are now flying to MV from BOS. It's a 47-51 minute flight on an E190. It must spend more time on the ground than flying, rather taking off and landing.

It would cut revenue, but also cut costs, because it's more efficient. WN is quite profitable, and they don't have regional service at all.

What is your point? It also connects with the E/M/F/R trains. I said LGA is about an hour from Manhattan, JFK is about an hour and a quarter. Of course it depends a lot on where in Manhattan you start from. SkyTrain is just a much more convenient connection.

That's not true at all. That's not a vote, that's a tiny, minority interest screwing everyone else over. The few people who pay absurd prices for regional air service are clogging the whole system up for the masses, who mostly live in the major metros in the first place, and among those who don't mostly drive to the major metros to fly.

Very funny. WN is pretty profitable, and I keep referencing their model. Apparently Spirit is quite profitable as well, so I hope that their model can expand as well, even though I'm not getting anywhere near a 28" seat pitch. Even though they don't serve people my size, their competition can only have a good affect on the market.

No.

Yes.

Sounds like you're the troll! Although on a serious note, we should have a huge expansion of rail service, both regional and long-distance, as well as highway improvements, and the tolling of highways to fund those improvements and rail systems.

No. Apparently you didn't bother to pay attention to my argument. My argument is that it's inefficient to fly small aircraft around (sub Boeing 737 at 143 seats into JFK, IAD, ORD etc, and sub Boeing 717 at 117 seats into DTW, MSP, etc), because they are causing severe congestion at the big hubs.

BDL and PVD support mainline aircraft. Any airport that can support mainline aircraft is fine. Maybe some that don't have mainline service could today in a world with no regional service, but with fewer planes per day. WN isn't going to go into a market where they can't drop a dozen 737's a day, but maybe the legacy carriers will drop one or two planes a day into some places.

There are also 2 parts of my argument. The first is that airports like PVD and BDL should be all-mainline, not the mix of mainline and regional that they are today. That's just consolidating flights down into fewer, bigger flights. Then, I'm saying that airports that can't support mainline service should be cut off the map completely.

We need to build up more rail capacity for sure, and better connections between rail, air, transit, parking, rental cars, etc. My plan would significantly reduce congestion in the air and at airports, although it would require the construction of more parking at the big mainline airports, which is needed already, as evidence by these kludgy park and shuttle lot contraptions. The Logan Express model might also work elsewhere, not sure. It would probably work better in areas with HOV lanes too, where the busses can buzz by traffic.

And a few MILLION jobs? What are you smoking? Maybe it will cost a few pilots' their jobs. Flight attendants would be fine because more mainline flights would be scheduled, and they have more flight attendants. The impact on the rest of things would be effectively nil.

DL is mostly 31, WN is mostly 32-33. I've experienced it myself. The 34 is BS, that's for the racket seats where they stole the inch from the normal people, and then try to sell it back to us for more money. Yeah, I don't think so. I'm not paying one red cent over the minimum cost to safely fly.

What are you smoking? I don't fit in the regionals, so how much legroom they have is irrelevant.

DL A320: 31-32
DL MD-88: 31-33
DL MD-90: 30-31
DL 717: 31

WN 737-700: 31
WN 737-800: 32-33
WN 737-300: 32-33
WN 737-500: 32-33

So yeah, WN is overall quite a bit better, when you look at the facts. Those are the DL planes I find.

beachmouse

That is the beauty of using a podunk field airport with an 8 gate terminal. If I'm not printing a boarding pass at a kiosk, it typically takes 15 minutes from parking the car to waiting at the gate.

I'm entirely serious. A 'long' TSA line is 10 minutes of that.

I hate those big city airports where you seems to spend longer in a TSA line than you do in the air.

murphysxm

In an effort to not feed the idiocy of this thread, I will defer to the original question. I am 6'5" and have a 32" inseam. Do the math, I am really, really long waisted and head room is an issue for me in almost every scenario of life. There is not a SINGLE airplane I have ever been on "I don't fit."So yeah, you'll be fine on this plane.

In addition to being a tool, I mean troll, the OP is also kind of a liar.

PS. the hotels by the airport are for us business travelers who have the 6 am flight HOME and want to be close to the gate, that we will show up at 5:30 for.

gooselee

I doesn't even need to be a podunk airport that OP wants to see closed.

My primary airport is ATL. I can get from the daily parking garage to any gate at ATL in 30 minutes max. That's the worst case scenario with a long security line and a flight departing out of gate E30 or something. Add another 5 minutes if I'm checking a bag.

Most days, I leave my house at T-90, park my car at T-70, and am in a SkyClub by T-60. The only reason I leave that early is in case Atlanta traffic decides to act up. I have walked out my front door at 5:15am and easily boarded a 6:00am flight many, many times.

PHL is another airport I frequent, that has a bit of a hike from TSA down to the gates. No moving sidewalks or trains or anything. I ordinarily plan to drop my rental car off at T-60. Even after waiting for the shuttle, checking a bag, and clearing security, I'm usually still at the gate at T-30. Heck, if I manage to catch the rental car shuttle just as it's leaving, I usually end up with enough time to stop by the lounge to grab a quick drink and a newspaper.

Just because OP needs 2 hours of lead time to feel comfortable making his flight doesn't mean the rest of us need that much, nor can we spare it.

In order...

1. What schedules are you referencing? Just because a flight departs at 6am doesn't mean that everyone on that flight is spending the night at the airport. Lots of us are grown-ups who go to bed early and then wake up at 3:30 or 4:00am to catch those flights.

2. I fly first and business often, and I am VERY cost conscious. Part of that means that I will pay extra for a ticket that is more flexible, or for a seat that allows me to get better rest of productivity on longer flights. Why? Because time is money and spending an extra $200 on a plane ticket might give me the time/space/whatever I need to generate an additional $1000 in revenue.

3. Airport hotels exist for a number of reasons. Sure, some people stay the night before their departure. Others have an overnight connection. Many companies book conferences/meetings there so people can easily and quickly fly in/out. Airport hotels also make tons of $$ from the airlines in terms of displaced passengers during WX and other IRROPS. People might be visiting other places/things that exist near airports. Note that your reason for staying there is just one among many.

4. Again, you're comparing an apple to a milkshake. If I trying to compare your height to mine, I wouldn't measure your height, then stand on a milk crate and measure my own.

5. You're right, it's not a vote. Because airlines are businesses, not a democracy. They cater to those who drive their profits. The world is not fair.

6. The other poster is not a troll. He/she made a natural extension of your argument about air travel, and applied it to highway travel. You refuse to respond accordingly because it illuminates how ridiculous your argument is.

7. If your plan is so great and bulletproof, perhaps you'd be better served by doing some legitimate research, drafting up a proposal, and taking it to your nearest lawmaker. You certainly have plenty of time to do so, based on your penchant for spending several hours driving to airports where WN operates.

8. You realize that it takes more than pilots and FAs to operate an aircraft and airport, right? I'm sure you'd agree that AGS, served only by about 15 regional jets each day, qualifies as an airport that should be shuttered under your strategy. After all, it's only a 3 hour drive from ATL or CLT. The only people that use it are rich, first-class pax going to the Masters, right? By closing that ONE airport, you'd be killing off over 1,500 jobs and $270 million in economic impact, plus the likely long-term effects of driving major local employers out of town when they can't attract quality talent to the area or conduct business efficiently. Heck, it even takes them an extra day to get US Mail now. Multiply that by however many podunk airports you want to close, some of which are quite a bit larger than AGS.

IflyfromABE

+1

You are describing my airport

40 minutes from my driveway to Gate.

BiggAW

There's no way you're going to fit on most, if not all, regional jets. Not happening. I don't, and you're two inches taller than me.

Except that the big city airports actually have flights to places you're actually going, or at least a good hub. And they fly mainline.

So if you got on a train the night before instead of the hotel, you'd be back at the same time...

Most days, I leave my house at T-90, park my car at T-70, and am in a SkyClub by T-60. The only reason I leave that early is in case Atlanta traffic decides to act up. I have walked out my front door at 5:15am and easily boarded a 6:00am flight many, many times.

Holy **** that's cutting it close. Considering that you have to be at the gate 35 minutes or so ahead of the flight leaving, and if it takes you 30 minutes to get to the gate, there's no breathing room there!

The standard is 2 hours, smaller airports at off peak times are around 90 minutes. I did about 90 minutes last time I flew out of PVD and it was fine. The most time consuming part was the line at DD, but we had enough time if we had gotten tied up somewhere.

1. There are a lot of scenarios where it's not practical or possible to go that morning, even if you wake up at 2 in the morning or something ridiculous. Or where you get in crazy late to where you are going, and stay near the airport before heading off to wherever you are going.

2. If you're cost conscious, you're looking for the cheapest tickets reasonably possible. That's economy or WN. Then there's being cheap. That might be Sprit, or just finding awful flight times on WN that are super cheap.

3. Right. But it's the primary driver. And if someone is sleep near the airport and flying out the next day, they could hop on the train sleeping car instead of staying at the hotel.

4. What?

5. That's why institutions like PANY&NJ should better control their resources. PANY&NJ is just letting Delta trash JFK to **** with congestion and delays because of their mini-jets instead of managing the available resources in a smart manner by banning <143 seat aircraft from JFK (or some other similar arbitrary number based on one particular type of mainline aircraft).

6. That's a ridiculous argument because highways aren't airports. There are also dedicated bus lanes in some places, like in NYC. And there probably should be more of them everywhere, or super-HOV lanes for vehicles carrying more than 4 people or something like that.

7. The best institutions to do it would be individual port authorities, or whatever organization controls the various airports. It wouldn't be nationwide at that point, but could de-congest some of the worst situations, like JFK.

8. Yes, commercial air service to AGS should be eliminated. If by 3 hours, you mean 2 hours and 26 minutes, yes. Closing that airport is not going to just get rid of $270M in economic impact. That's just ridiculous. It's not nearly that many jobs. And in terms of getting there, if they have to hub at ATL anyway, they may as well just drive to ATL in the first place, like most people probably already do. ATL is the big hub, so its' radius of influence is far larger. ATL is an attraction to Augusta, not rinky-dink-a-doo airport. You can fly from ATL to most of the planet non-stop, unlike rinky-dink-a-doo airport where you might be able to fly on mini jets to a couple of hubs. I enjoy being served by 3 major international airports (unlike our two local airports and their "international" turboprop to Canada, and occasionally a flight to Cancun), much in the same way that Augusta is served by the mega-hub at ATL.

If you're looking for economic impact, good regional and national rail systems are what will help the economy, not service on tiny planes to rinky-dink-a-doo airport that very people can/will afford/pay for anyway.

beachmouse

Can we all pause and offer a moment of silence for whatever clause it was in the Northwest pilots union contract in the early 00s that forced their partner airlines to literally pull seats out of RJs in order to not hit the max number of seats a commuter plane could have then. That was seriously the best standard leg room of any economy seat of the post-deregulation era, and when I'd make my connection in Memphis, the big mainline jet from there seemed extremely cramped in comparison.

I think an NBA player could have made it work with those RJ seats without much fuss.

As far as airport hotels go, we try to book flights at a reasonable hour and then our cat sitter is willing to do drop off and pick up as part of her service. I can ask her to drive us 20 minutes to podunk field. I can't really ask her for a three hour round trip commitment to a further airport, so starting at podunk actually saves us $100-$150 in long term parking fees.

Side note on NK- I'm not up on true discount carrier airline codes so for a second, I thought it was for Air Koryo and was all 'yes, the original poster is a communist after all if he's holding that airline up.' Though from the reviews of both Air Koryo and Spirit, they sound kind of similar save that the North Koreans actually include dinner with ticket price.

murphysxm

So to clarify, in addition to you telling me how I should travel you also know better how I fit on planes? Clearly, some part of you has to acknowledge how badly you look based on this thread, right?

BiggAW

That still doesn't address the height of the airframe.

And you end up spending far more than that on expensive tickets.

I wasn't until I googled it. Spirit is out-Southwesting Southwest in some ways, and yet failing to be as lean and efficient as Southwest in others.

I didn't say you shouldn't go on them, I just said you're not going to fit. And that's a fact.

pkk

Mine takes longer since it's 40 miles, but it's usually 60 minutes from my driveway to gate. Thank GOD I have never even passed through JFK or LGA. Obviously those city people don't know what great airports are.

Proud to fly PIA!!

gooselee

Um...I'm probably going to trust murphysxm's take on how well he/she fits on to various aircraft a lot more than yours. As in, I believe the actual person completely and cannot fathom how you would know better than they do.

As for your responses to my numbered post, that was exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you for continuing to prove how deluded you are and keeping the entertainment value of this thread up. We haven't had this much fun in the DL forum in a while.

jb1012xna

I'll bow out now. I can't keep up with all of the holes in the arguments, dear Liza.

sethb

And some of them don't.

I typically plan to be at JFK 1 hour in advance of my flight, if I'm checking luggage (because that's what DL wants). I've hit delays, gone to the Security Theater line at T-25, and caught my flight with no problem (no checked luggage).

The first day the Acela ran, one Boston newspaper sent two reporters to NYC the night before, and had them race back to Boston, on on Acela, the other flying. They were less than 5 minutes apart (and the flight was delayed by weather).

You need to be more explicit. Service other than mainline provides benefits to me, so whining about "efficiency" is irrelevant.

Except for airports that don't have such "good competition" but still manage to survive. (Some of them are pretty big, too; ever hear of "fortress hub"?)

So everybody should do what you find the most convenient to have them do? No. Just no.

They can do lots of things. What you don't seem to realize is that it's their choice what they do, not yours.

Does it make a profit? That's what matters, not how much time it spends where.

Delta is even more profitable, and they have lots of regional service. Are you willing to pay Delta the foregone profit if they cancel all their regional service?

You mentioned only the 7.

SkyTrain is a long block walk semi-indoors, Q70 is right outside the subway station. The walk from SkyTrain to some terminals is longer (and outside) than the walk from Q70 to any terminal.

That's what "voting with their wallets" means.

Apparently you don't understand how capitalism works. People/companies do what is in their best interests, not what is in yours.

And DL is even more profitable, so their model is obviously better.

Your argument is wrong. The efficiency of using small aircraft to provide convenience outweighs any inefficiencies. Proof is simple: doing it that way is more profitable.

I'd rather have a choice of 6 flight times a day in small aircraft rather than one in a larger aircraft. Apparently, enough people agree with my preferences to make it profitable to cater to them.

So you want to decrease convenience for passengers. We (and the airlines) vote No. You lose.

gooselee

You are far more succinct than I.

MS02113

I don't need to get from curb to gate in 25 minutes, though I usually manage to do so in even less time. If I arrive one hour before departure, I have 45 minutes to get to the gate, assuming final call is at T-15. Of course, if I were flying WN, I'd have missed the cattle call by the point and would be stuck in the middle seat in the last row across from the lavatory.

If you need to arrive 90 minutes early at PVD, I can't help you.

No, it isn't. Maybe for you, but the rest of us don't arrive at the airport two hours early.

Nonsense. I already quoted the travel times for you, but I'll repeat them here: 1 hour 45 minutes flying vs. 6 hours 45 minutes on Acela vs. 7 hours and 50 minutes on Northeast Regional.

And no one travelling from downtown Boston to downtown D.C. flies to BWI unless they're looking to save money.

Best case (and it can be much, much worse), the drive from Boston to Woods Hole takes 1 hour 20 minutes, then one has to find parking and board, then the ferry to Martha's Vineyard takes another 45 minutes. The ferry from HYA to ACK is longer. On busy summer weekends, flying is simply quicker and more convenient if you live near BOS. Again, for those of us who don't require two hours to find our way around the airport.

Dunkin Donuts is inefficient and a waste of money. The line clogs up the concourse for other passengers who bring their own coffee from home and just want to get to their gate. All Dunkin Donuts should be eliminated.