FAA wants more flight reductions at ORD

 
Old Jul 30, 04, 9:26 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Heading to Costco for more popcorn...
Programs: UA 1K 2MM Flier, SPG Plt, Hilton Dia
Posts: 8,453
Agree completely with UAL_Rulez, NickP 1K, FWAAA....

And then this morning's Tribune where Fitzgerald alleges "the Daley administration and United Airlines plotted to create the flight delay crisis at O'Hare International Airport to drum up public support for new runways"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1934964.story
cawhite is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 10:28 am
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: Bar Alliance Gold
Posts: 16,266
While my first post of "just fly widebodies everywhere" was tongue-in-cheek, I do believe that the majors are concentrating far too much on frequency versus efficiency.

I do not believe that there is insufficient demand between ORD and SDF or ORD and BNA to justify mainline aircraft. I believe there is insufficient demand between ORD and those two cities to justify frequent mainline aircraft.

The whole point of a hub-and-spoke system is to funnel people from the spokes into the hub and get them on to their eventual destination (and the reverse). So why offer two 50-person planes an hour apart when one 100-person plane can fill the role?

UA really needs to review their route system for frequency. I imagine that most routes can handle one 737/Airbii in the "morning", one in the "afternoon", and one in the "evening". Then, in-between the three mainline flights, they can run one CRJ-50 for a total of five flights, versus the 8-10 RJs they have now running every 90 minutes or so.

Or if you really can't get three mainline planes to capacity, yet need five frequencies, then run five CRJ-700s/EMB-170s that have First Class, Economy Plus, and a "mainline feel" cabin. Your elites are happy (First and E+) and everyone else appreciates the "real" seats and more roomy cabin.

As we know, the RJs often fly not only packed, but oversold. And they seem to suffer far higher maintenance issues then mainline aircraft, which snowballs things even worse - both at the UAX and the UA end (when you have late-arriving UAX pax trying to get on the last UA flight of the day and earlier planes going out with empty seats cause the UAX pax are still at their origin). UA is tossing out VDB vouchers left and right. I myself once earned two VDBs on one flight because they so badly wanted my seat.

Restoring mainline service not only makes your pax more comfortable, it makes them happier because they get to their destination on time. And it makes you more efficient because your hub airports aren't "snowed under" with a wave of RJs running around taking up slots. I mean you can't just launch an RJ right after a 777 (much less land one) due to wake turbulence issues, so that increases spacing delays, which increases wait time.
SEA_Tigger is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 11:30 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal to the rest of the world...
Programs: AA EXP with lots of BA and CX. (Disgruntled UA Lifetime Plat) - No hotel loyalty anymore
Posts: 6,362
Partially re-regulate city pairs from ORD...

e.g. On ORD-DEN, regulate that a max of 15 daily departures allowed. A scheme to give slots to operators that apply evenly. e.g. Just handing the slots to AA/UA isn't the answer. The slots CANNOT be altered to be anything other than ORD-DEN, (as an example).

The open slot times to any airport yield these multiples of flights to same destinations with yields that aren't making any of these guys any money.

The solution is to slot control per destination (however ANY destination can be added to the slot control mix). The idea is to prevent multiple carriers flying inefficent RJ's 3 times more a day then flying mainline equipment in less frequencies a day. The overall timing per destination still works, however IT WON'T be on everyones preferred carrier. That's life!
NickP 1K is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 11:48 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,976
I've read in a few places that airlines own "landing slots" at some airports. I'm assuming this means that the airport in question recognizes that they have only a finite capacity in handling landings and takeoffs and has sold the right to do so for a fee.

Why not apply the same type of logic to ORD? Demand is obviously greater than supply. If O'Hare can only handle 100 arrivals and departures per hour, then sell the rights to 100 arrivals and departures for each hour throughout the day and let the airlines determine how badly they want them. I'm not sure what kind of landing fees O'Hare charges right now, but surely the airport could benefit from this type of arrangement, both in terms of delay reductions and also increased cash to fund expansion efforts.

There's nothing like playing Armchair Airport President...
blort is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 11:50 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Programs: UA Premier
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
The whole point of a hub-and-spoke system is to funnel people from the spokes into the hub and get them on to their eventual destination (and the reverse). So why offer two 50-person planes an hour apart when one 100-person plane can fill the role?

UA really needs to review their route system for frequency. I imagine that most routes can handle one 737/Airbii in the "morning", one in the "afternoon", and one in the "evening". Then, in-between the three mainline flights, they can run one CRJ-50 for a total of five flights, versus the 8-10 RJs they have now running every 90 minutes or so.
Well, no system is perfect. Here are a few issues with this proposal:
1. Aircraft availability: Even with a massive restructuring of routes, UA doesn't have enough aircraft to provide mainline service to every station that could conceivably support it. For every mainline flight to Eugene, Nashville or Santa Barbara, UA has to take service from somewhere.
2. Reduced effective banks: If you reduce the number of flights from an airport, you reduce the number of usable banks of flights from that airport. Implementing this model would mean that passengers would be concentrated into three huge banks during the day. Ground support would be swamped during these times but relatively idle otherwise.
3. Increased station costs: Once you start flying a single mainline flight into a station, that station must be staffed by UA personnel, not UX personnel. UA is willing to support some stations with only a single mainline flight (e.g., Wichita) but I doubt they'd be willing to support every station.

While I think that there are things the FAA and individual airports can do to reduce congestion (e.g., landing fees that vary by time of day, landing fees not based on weight, re-implementing slot controls at ORD) I'm not sure a wholesale reduction of RJ flights is the way to go.
lucius is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 1:23 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1P
Posts: 789
I'm no expert by any means, but I found intriguing the idea of allowing various regional airlines to provide codesharing for multiple airlines. I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, if regulations allow.

One example for this already seems to exist. I always notice this when I flip through Hemispheres: You can earn M+ miles on some Continental Connection (operated by Gulfstream) regional flights. I have never done this, nor explored it, but if you can earn United miles for a flight on Continental's regional livery, then why not in other cases?

Not a lot of detail on the Continental Connection overlap on ual.com. The link that lists the mileage-earning opportunity is

http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1520,00.html

but the Continental Connection link sends you to

http://www.gulfstreamair.com/

Their United link sends you straight back to ual.com.

Is there any reason why other regional airlines couldn't "share" the passengers with codeshares? Slap a neutral livery on the side!
cakobau is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 1:32 pm
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
American Eagle and Delta have a codesharing arrangement in Southern California for several routes from LAX; it makes sense to allow majors to cooperate on codeshares for RJ-sized routes, but what we really need are fewer airlines. Fewer airlines = less overlap = less congestion.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 1:40 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: aspen,co usa
Posts: 189
Angry

Originally Posted by Gman3
I would love to see mainline return on HPN as I commute to it. Reduce from 7 RJs to 4 Mainline like we had. PVD is a big market and should NOT have RJs. Oh, by the way, Many of you know I am NOT an RJ fan. It is clogging ORD.


I agree as a conecting victim..err passenger....
It's not clogging..it's clogged!!!!
pacozg is offline  
Old Jul 30, 04, 4:00 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, AA CK MM, HH Diamond, SPG Prem Plat
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by fastair
I do think at least 1 of the NYC airports has slot restriction's still on em...not sure which, or if both do.
Politicians!
LGA has slot restrictions. For all the real avaition nerds. . .

Demand management is a ridiculously complex issue in the airport/avaition industry. There was quite a bit of momentum behind the types of ideas being put forth in this thread through the first half of 2001. In June 2001, FAA (or, more specifically, the consultant they hired) published an interesting piece on how to manage capacity at LGA in the Federal Register. There was a huge flurry of letter writing by airlines, lobbying organizations, airports, and the public on this piece. The federal register piece is linked below and the interesting stuff starts on page 31735.

http://apo.faa.gov/lga/June%2012%20notice(1).pdf

In the aftermath of September 11, the issue was for all intensive purposes, put aside by everybody. With air traffic down 20-30%, who cared about demand management? Everyone seemed to forget that, in 1996, when traffic was 20-30% lower than the beginning of 2001, was when this whole demand management idea started taking off since delays were getting really bad! So, now, in light of traffic levels returning to their pre-9/11 levels, the FAA wants to talk about it again, starting from where they were in 1996.

Massport recently published another take on demand management in May 2004. They had to do this study before they could build their new runway 14-32 and demonstrate that there was no way they could accomodate forecast aircraft demand without building another runway.

http://www.massport.com/about/pdf/c_...draft_5_04.pdf
allikator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: