FAA urges airlines to shrink schedules

[UAL_TECH]

FAA urges airlines to shrink schedules

Wondering how this affects legacy, LCC', and etc.. (Virgin and SWA and their influence on UAL and the system)

So how does this work?

Each airport has specific landing/takeoff slots assigned. (given the number/lengths of runways in a 24 hour period, and FAA ATC/GCA/PAR support)

If airport xyz can add slots for startups/expansion then the FAA says it's too much and they have to be reduced, what is the process for determining who looses what slot?

Is there some algorithm that is applied or is it more/pure political?

When speaking of capacity, do they include corporate, cargo, private, etc... ?

Thanks,
B) UT

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

The government can't ask for voluntary schedule reductions and expect it to work.When they asked AA and UA to reduce their respective schedules at ORD other carriers took it as an opportunity to add flights, thereby negating any benefit the reductions may have provided.

The government needs to decide if it is going to regulate the industry or not.Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

[jimntx]

Same reason why the action to reduce capacity--while a popular mantra among the airline talking heads (us included )--is not a workable solution. If one airline cuts back service to a destination, some other airline increases it. I park some planes, someone else buys/leases new ones.

Just as their is always some guy with a huge ego and more money than sense who thinks he can be successful in the airline business where others have failed, there is always some airline that thinks they can make money in a market where no else ever has.

 

[UAL_TECH]

The government can't ask for voluntary schedule reductions and expect it to work.When they asked AA and UA to reduce their respective schedules at ORD other carriers took it as an opportunity to add flights, thereby negating any benefit the reductions may have provided.

The government needs to decide if it is going to regulate the industry or not.Lead, follow or get out of the way.

I remember that quite well.
I'm just wondering if this isn't another shell game or if there is real substance.
With this FAA warning, who will 'really' be affected and what are the 'rules'?

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[1AA]

Yea the airlines say they want to help with congestion, green house affect, reduce dependency on oil and so on. But what they really end up doing is adding more RJ flights. This takes up the same gates, taxi slots, airway slots as the main line flying. More congestion on the ground and in the air. Airlines need to scale back the RJ flying and increase seat capacity on main line flying. Would it be that bad to have 10 flights a day from MIA to LGA with mainline flying versus 25 with RJ's with connecting stops?
American has RJ's flying beyond their design. They fly them with massive weight restrictions to make the range. Yet AA has mainline jets from MIA to MCO and TPA. Eagle flies non-stops to Cincinnati and Cleveland from MIA. Always weight restricted.
How they make money is beyond me. One 737, 757 or MD80 would be more profitable and less congestion both on the ground and in the air.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Yea the airlines say they want to help with congestion, green house affect, reduce dependency on oil and so on. But what they really end up doing is adding more RJ flights. This takes up the same gates, taxi slots, airway slots as the main line flying. More congestion on the ground and in the air. Airlines need to scale back the RJ flying and increase seat capacity on main line flying. Would it be that bad to have 10 flights a day from MIA to LGA with mainline flying versus 25 with RJ's with connecting stops?
American has RJ's flying beyond their design. They fly them with massive weight restrictions to make the range. Yet AA has mainline jets from MIA to MCO and TPA. Eagle flies non-stops to Cincinnati and Cleveland from MIA. Always weight restricted.
How they make money is beyond me. One 737, 757 or MD80 would be more profitable and less congestion both on the ground and in the air.

Logically, it would be that simple, but reality dictates otherwise.

Using a hypothetical analogy:

Airline ABC fly’s 10 frequencies (landing/TO slots) using a CRJ-200 (50 seat) from point A to Point B.
The competition of airline DEF and GHI do exactly the same thing with similar load factors.
All flights of all 3 airlines are cost competitive with the same amenities.
If airline ABC decided to fly 2 flights a day using a 767-300 the end result would most likely be:

1) 767 flying 50 PAX and 160 open seats twice a day
2) Airlines DEF and GHI would increase their CRJ frequencies by 8 (who gets what is TBD or airline JKL fills the gap)

The end result would be that airline ABC has increased costs due to the larger aircraft with decreased revenue (loss).
Now, with an operating loss of ABC, they have to make a decision to go back to the CRJ (after loosing 8 slots) or get out of the market.

I'm certainly not a market analyst, but this is the way I see it.

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Well,

If the FEDS are serious about "putting teeth" into this, I could see it, as benefiting the BIG BOYS at their prospective "stranglehold hubs", in some cases, large focus cities.

Ex...AA at JFK.

If the feds say Everyone "pull back'" (say) 20%, than that benefits AA the most, causes DL to have a MAJOR CORONARY, and has minimal effect on B6.

UAL at DEN.
Same theory. Helps UA, but causes Frontier..."indigestion"

(this is assuming that if 1 carrier pulls back, another can't "beef up")

Where "this" would get interesting, is what type of (hypothetical) effect this would have on say WN?

 

[jimntx]

Yea the airlines say they want to help with congestion, green house affect, reduce dependency on oil and so on. But what they really end up doing is adding more RJ flights. This takes up the same gates, taxi slots, airway slots as the main line flying. More congestion on the ground and in the air. Airlines need to scale back the RJ flying and increase seat capacity on main line flying. Would it be that bad to have 10 flights a day from MIA to LGA with mainline flying versus 25 with RJ's with connecting stops?

Another problem with this scenario is the passengers. Today, they think that airline schedules should be built strictly to their convenience--to hell with any other consideration.

"What do you mean the flights to MIA only depart at 0800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, and 2400? I need to go to MIA at 0923. If you can't provide that flight, I'll just fly on another airline."

 

[rvolkcpa]

Logically, it would be that simple, but reality dictates otherwise.

Using a hypothetical analogy:

Airline ABC fly’s 10 frequencies (landing/TO slots) using a CRJ-200 (50 seat) from point A to Point B.
The competition of airline DEF and GHI do exactly the same thing with similar load factors.
All flights of all 3 airlines are cost competitive with the same amenities.
If airline ABC decided to fly 2 flights a day using a 767-300 the end result would most likely be:

1) 767 flying 50 PAX and 160 open seats twice a day
2) Airlines DEF and GHI would increase their CRJ frequencies by 8 (who gets what is TBD or airline JKL fills the gap)

The end result would be that airline ABC has increased costs due to the larger aircraft with decreased revenue (loss).
Now, with an operating loss of ABC, they have to make a decision to go back to the CRJ (after loosing 8 slots) or get out of the market.

I'm certainly not a market analyst, but this is the way I see it.

Take Care,
B) UT

I have a solution for this problem, but it would never meet antitrust laws. If 3 airlines fly 9 flights each on RJ's between major cities, the government could encourage/require them to codeshare and divide up the service. Let them each operate 3 flights and accept each other's tickets. The first flight of the day could be operated by ABC, the next by DEF, the third by GHI and then back to ABC for the 4th flight, etc. I know this would never work in the real world, but it could eliminate congestion.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

UAL at DEN.
Same theory. Helps UA, but causes Frontier..."indigestion"

(this is assuming that if 1 carrier pulls back, another can't "beef up")

Where "this" would get interesting, is what type of (hypothetical) effect this would have on say WN?

But, do you think that DEN will be among the last airports for slot restrictions? I thought there was still plenty of room for growth there...

- astra