Matt Molnar
2009-05-17, 03:29 AM
An interesting theory from the NY Times Freakonomics blog.
Basically, JFK, EWR and LGA all get in the way of each other, which requires needlessly complicated approach routes which add time to flights. If one of the airports were eliminated, there would be a lot more room to navigate. Since LGA handles a lot less traffic than the other two, it would be the most sensible one to close.
Of course this will probably never happen...JFK and EWR would have to build new runways to pick up the slack, and those who enjoy the comparitively easy access to LGA from Manhattan would be furious. But it's worth a thought.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... more-11359 (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/want-to-fix-new-york-air-congestion-shut-down-laguardia/#more-11359)
Basically, JFK, EWR and LGA all get in the way of each other, which requires needlessly complicated approach routes which add time to flights. If one of the airports were eliminated, there would be a lot more room to navigate. Since LGA handles a lot less traffic than the other two, it would be the most sensible one to close.
Of course this will probably never happen...JFK and EWR would have to build new runways to pick up the slack, and those who enjoy the comparitively easy access to LGA from Manhattan would be furious. But it's worth a thought.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... more-11359 (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/want-to-fix-new-york-air-congestion-shut-down-laguardia/#more-11359)