Comments on: Will JFK Suck in Summer 2008?

By: CF

CF — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:00:34 +0000

I hadn’t seen that. Thanks Chris.

By: chris carmody

chris carmody — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:30:15 +0000

CF are you aware of this A380 blog to commemorate the first flight http://sq380.net/Trip%20Reports.html ?

By: Sean O'Neill

Sean O'Neill — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:08:04 +0000

Great analysis. Budget Travel’s website has posted a link to this, to bring more attention.

By: CF

CF — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:36:46 +0000

I am working on a piece about the A380 which I hope to have up on Monday. Don’t worry, I’m not ignoring it!

By: aviation.c0t0d0s0.org

aviation.c0t0d0s0.org — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:18:32 +0000

Der Markt für die A380…

Anhand des Beitrages Will JFK Suck in Summer 2008? im CrankyFlier-Blog kann man meines Erachtens sehen, das Boeing sichtweise, das in zukunft hauptsächlich direkt geflogen wird, nicht ganz korrekt sein kann.

Im verlinkten Blogartikel wird beschri…

By: chris carmody

chris carmody — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:19:45 +0000

How about some comment on the first commercial flight of the A380 from Singapore to Sydney.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:31:52 +0000

I like the artificial island (and the margaritas, for that matter), but I’m not a big fan of the plan to restructure airports like that. While local traffic is important, connecting traffic is also a very important component. This would effectively kill most connecting opportunities.

If you get international flights into JFK, anyone who wants to go domestic would have to go to LGA or EWR. You split up hubs like Continental’s over in EWR and make travel miserable for all the connectors.

By: Jason H

Jason H — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:47:34 +0000

Maybe the real solution (other than a new airport on an artificial island) is to restructure the three airports to serve certain kinds of flights.

Right now, JFK can handle 75-87 flights per hour, LGA 78-85, and EWR 84-92 (from the FAA website). Since JFK is primarily an international port, then shift all the international flights (excluding Caribbean) to JFK. Make LGA serve long range domestic and short haul international, and make EWR serve as a regional jet and short haul domestic hub.

Of course such a plan requires that there is excellent transportation between the airports, but it would at least put all the regional flights at the airport with the highest capacity.

By: Bradley

Bradley — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:56:43 +0000

In late 2006 the FAA modified a seat/capacity rule at LGA, raising the required annual avg seats per aircraft, per airline, to around 80 or so. This still allows RJ’s to fly in.

I see no reason why a similar rule could not be put in place at JFK. No reason to cut service to the smaller cities; just stop serving the big cities with the small planes so frequently.

Additionally, if there is such demand, why shouldn’t the FAA increase landing fees as long as it funds expansion? However, if JFK gets raised fees and seat restrictions, so should EWR.

Raise the costs. Raise the fares. Increase seat restrictions. Demand will slow but carriers already raised fares to cover fuel and netted millions this quarter.

Elasticities in this market do not reflect national trends. If fares increase due to higher facility costs…

- the airlines will still make money in the market with fewer planes

- the PANYNJ generates revenue to cover expansion costs

- the decrease in traffic buys a little more time for the FAA to sort out the airspace and develop NextGen.

Problem solved. Let’s go get fajitas. Margaritas for everyone!

By: CF

CF — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:00:24 +0000

That’s definitely a good way to increase capacity, but it’s a sticky issue. It’s easy to say that they need to replace their 50 seat RJs with 150 seat narrowbodies, but most of the routes using 50 seaters just don’t have enough demand to fill the big guys. So in that case, the airlines will just stop serving those smaller cities. Is that better? I just don’t know.