Feds to Limit JFK Flights, Auction Slots

[Matt Molnar]

New York Times:

U.S. to Limit Flights at Kennedy (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/nyregion/11airport.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — The Transportation Department plans to announce next week that it will impose limits on the number of flights landing and taking off at Kennedy International Airport in an effort to ease congestion and delays, according to officials involved in the deliberations.

For passengers, industry experts said, the move could initially result in fewer flights and higher fares but potentially fewer long delays and missed connections.

In addition, the experts said that if limits were introduced, they would eventually have to be extended to La Guardia and Newark Liberty International because the caps at Kennedy could lead airlines to shift some flights to those airports. Read more... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/nyregion/11airport.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)

[T-Bird76]

This is a bad move by the Fed, vs holding the FAA accountable they are punishing the consumer. Hopefully this will mean greater use of the other area regional airports and spur some growth at places like ISP, SWF, HPN and others.

[adam613]

Ok, maybe this is just the tax-the-rich liberal in me talking, and I have no idea if it would work, but what about this:

The Port charges landing fees that increase with aircraft weight. A big part of the congestion problem at JFK is regional jets being operated with great frequency. Instead of charging fees per-landing, why doesn't the Port charge air carriers a use fee that takes into account their ability to cram as many people or pallets onto as few flights as possible? That way, the Port gets its upkeep money (which is necessarily higher for bigger aircraft) but also can provide incentive for airlines to take up fewer landing slots.

So say there are two airlines that each decide to offer capacity for 900 pax to fly from FLL to JFK on any given day. Airline A does so using three flights a day on two-class 767-400s. Airline B does so using five one-class A320s. Airline B is taking up two more slots than airline A to move the same number of pax, so they should pay a larger user fee.

The reason I'm not sure about this is I don't know what the airlines' incremental cost is to fly a larger aircraft compared to a smaller one; if it's high, this could end up hurting them more than slot restrictions.

[PhilDernerJr]

Similar incentives in terms of landing fees for smaller aircraft have been discussed for years at LGA, which has an even more serious problem with underutilization from so many regional jets operating. I, too, thought that creating incentives for work, and from what I've learned from others in the industry, it would only make things more difficult for the airlines.

Airlines would rather, and by need and demand are forced, to offer frequency of flights spread out to appeal to customers more. Instead of restricting them to one flight a day on a 767, passengers enjoy the flexibility to fly at various times of the day.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the prop planes and RJs that come in over 3 or 4 flights might fit on a larger aircraft, but often those smaller airports that they are coming from do not have the facilities to handle anything larger (more goes into handling a big plane than just runway length).

Also keep in mind that the airlines don't fly all those multiple RJ flights for fun. It's cheaper for the airlines to fly one flight in a day instead of 3 or 4 on smaller aircraft. Offering that frequency is a part of the appeal that allows them to draw the business.

It's a tight spot for everyone, because you want to offer frequency and also offer feeder service from smaller airports that bring people close to the big planes to fly internationally.

So, for the congestion that is the result of too many smaller aircraft, the only thing that can be done is to spread operations among three airports (one for international and transcons, one for the rest of the domestic and the other for regional ops), and connect the three with high speed rail.

I know it's far fetched to connect three local airports with rail like that, especially after the ordeal of getting the AirTrain running, but it's the only way to truly separate the different kinds of air traffic. Assign airports their role, so air/taxiway/runway congestion is spread out among the airfield's capabilities, and a fast rail connect people to other flights at the other airports. The technology is there. The funds and red tape....eh.

Some say that runway utilization is the key, but I disagree. It helps, but not enough to really clear the issue up. The only way to do that would be to use all four runways at JFK at the same time, and the airspace around here is enough of a nightmare as it is.

[lijk604]

This is a bad move by the Fed, vs holding the FAA accountable they are punishing the consumer. Hopefully this will mean greater use of the other area regional airports and spur some growth at places like ISP, SWF, HPN and others.

If the Port does not object to this, then it's a sure sign that they want to ensure growth at their new reliever airport SWF. SWF is way underdused for it's size and without additional flights there, the Port cannot make any more money.
Now living in Brookhaven township I would love to see new service come to ISP as that would mean more opportunities for me. Don't get me wrong, SWA has plenty of options, but it would be nice to see someone have a IAD flight (UAX), NW Airlink could bring a daily MSP or DTW flight? Okay, how about a real pipedream something nonstop to HOU or DFW (CO-Exp or EGF)?

[bonanzabucks]

The Newsday reports that the DOT won't confirm this report and that this is one of several options they're going to suggest next week. But on a.net, they said that they'd do an auction system and probably extend flight caps to EWR and LGA.

Seems to me that the Fed didn't even try to come up with viable solutions and alternatives and they just wanted to put their foot down. Also, I don't think they thought of the consequences when coming up with this "solution". This would be really bad for the NYC region and the US economy in general. JFK is the busiest and most important international gateway in the country. Foreigners want to fly to NY, not Dallas, not Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte or Detroit. Those airports, while congested, aren't going to be affected by any cap, but you don't see nor have seen foreign carriers rushing to fly there. We're going to lose our competitive advantage.

Flight caps have never worked anywhere. LHR has them, but the airport, London and the UK are losing out to France, Holland and Germany. As a result, the BAA is going to build a 3rd runway to stay in the game or they'll risk economic ruin. the UK has other options to fly to (STN, LGW, MAN) and nobody went there in spite of incentives the BAA gave them.

BOS also tried congestion pricing and it failed miserably. The city and airport are still trying to recover.

Also, I don't know if the Fed can legally implement this plan unless they have an Executive Order from the President. They'll need congressional approval, and the airlines have a very powerful lobby. All of them are against it, and the Governors of both NY and NJ, the PA, business leaders and just about everyone else will lobby hard to make sure this doesn't get passed. Not to mention, the PA, governor, mayor's office and airlines threatened to take the issue to court. It won't be easy for the Fed to go through with this.

The Fed had all the time in the world to come up with some good long-term plans to improve air traffic congestion, but they sat on their asses all these years and focused on other things (i.e. Iraq). Now, our transportation system is a mess with no coherent plan to improve it. It's just stupid -- limiting JFK's four runways to the same number of flights as LGA's two intersecting ones. How retarded is that?!

[PhilDernerJr]

With the exception of those than can't obtain slots into LGA, most of these regional flights going into JFK are so they can connect to international travel. Without a way for such people to get to JFK from SWF or HPN, it takes away the demand to want to fly here completely.

[Tom_Turner]

Open up Governors' Island to small prop commuter aircraft. 8am-8pm or whatever.

That'll take some pressure off LGA & EWR as airlines will convert some rjs to props, and to some extent, JFK as well.

TT

[adam613]

So, for the congestion that is the result of too many smaller aircraft, the only thing that can be done is to spread operations among three airports (one for international and transcons, one for the rest of the domestic and the other for regional ops), and connect the three with high speed rail.

I know it's far fetched to connect three local airports with rail like that, especially after the ordeal of getting the AirTrain running, but it's the only way to truly separate the different kinds of air traffic. Assign airports their role, so air/taxiway/runway congestion is spread out among the airfield's capabilities, and a fast rail connect people to other flights at the other airports. The technology is there. The funds and red tape....eh.

The track is already there too, for the most part. Going through Penn Station, there are already connections to JFK, EWR, ISP, and SWF (not to mention PHL and BWI). The problem is, it would take awhile by rail because the rails aren't any less congested than the airports are.

[PhilDernerJr]

It would have to be a while new set up, I think, using shuttle trains instead of commuter trains.

I would envision the tri-link rail between JFK, LGA and either HPN/FRG/TEB (SWF is too far). High speed shuttle trains dedicated only to airport transportation, straight line tracks bringing you directly to either airport within 15 minutes.

Going through Manhatan would be out of the way, but getting over/under the East River to connect HPN/SWF otherwise would be tough.