Airlines Told To Reduce Flights At O'hare
- Thread starter ITRADE
- Start date
It is my understanding that this round of cuts does not apply to United or American. Both voluntarily reduced schedules at ORD (last year, I think) to help overall on-time performance and got rewarded by other airlines increasing their flights into/out of ORD. I read another article which said that this time applies to airlines other than UAL and AA.
Then let the feds reinstate the slot system.
Why they removed the slot system without making any changes to the airport and no drop-off in demand was beyond me in the first place.
An different demand management program would be to charge higher fees for smaller aircraft, thus encouraging airlines to operate as many seats with fewer flights.
Why they removed the slot system without making any changes to the airport and no drop-off in demand was beyond me in the first place.
An different demand management program would be to charge higher fees for smaller aircraft, thus encouraging airlines to operate as many seats with fewer flights.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< This is one of the main reasons Carty of a.a. bought TWA! St. Louis !!! It would take pressure off of ORD! As stated above, just a matter of time, and ORD will be maxed out! But alass!!!! Carty is gone, and a good portion of the gates at STL with him!!!!! Another one of a.a.'s better ideas???? :down:
Someone else had posted a link here on USAviation.com. I would guess that the link is no longer valid by now. It was 2-3 weeks ago.
If you are implying that I am lying, then don't worry. Either I am or I am not. Time will tell. I was just posting what I believed to be true, but then I said that didn't I? "It is my understanding...", not "And now, from the summit of Mt. Sinai..."
If you are implying that I am lying, then don't worry. Either I am or I am not. Time will tell. I was just posting what I believed to be true, but then I said that didn't I? "It is my understanding...", not "And now, from the summit of Mt. Sinai..."
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
This is a repeat of the same thing that happened at LGA pre-9/11. You would think the government would learn that you can’t arbitrarily lift slot controls without providing some kind of mechanism to cap demand.
I haven’t seen a comprehensive document of flight additions by carrier at ORD over the past year. Other than Independence, I don’t know what carriers have actually added service. Please post if you know where those additions have come from other than UA and AA who we know have added flights.
I’m not sure that I agree with the FAA’s logic that delays at ORD should be eliminated because they create havoc throughout the system. Yes, ORD has delays but it is the marketplace that should decide how to isolate the ORD problem and not the government. Airlines have learned to isolate ATC and weather problems at problem hubs and the FAA needs to learn to do the same. If ORD is a delay problem and delays cause an unexpected increase in traffic to NYC because a storm finally moves away from ORD and traffic can now flow, NYC controllers need to limit the amount of traffic which can flow to NYC to what was originally scheduled. The converse is true if backups develop.
I too believe that AA made a major strategic mistake by so quickly dismantling STL given the capacity problems at ORD. Although AA does have plenty of capacity at DFW, there are some O&Ds that can’t be efficiently served going that far south. Likewise, UA may think twice about any plans to reduce DEN given that it is a workable but costly hub. DEN is within an RJs flight range of about 2/3 of the United States by geography and even more with the EMB 170. Shifting a great deal of connecting traffic to DEN would allow UA to preserve its high frequency services to the top domestic business cities while and its international services, both of which are well-supported by the local Chicago community. Flights to smaller cities which are primarily connecting in nature might well be moved to another hub.
I haven’t seen a comprehensive document of flight additions by carrier at ORD over the past year. Other than Independence, I don’t know what carriers have actually added service. Please post if you know where those additions have come from other than UA and AA who we know have added flights.
I’m not sure that I agree with the FAA’s logic that delays at ORD should be eliminated because they create havoc throughout the system. Yes, ORD has delays but it is the marketplace that should decide how to isolate the ORD problem and not the government. Airlines have learned to isolate ATC and weather problems at problem hubs and the FAA needs to learn to do the same. If ORD is a delay problem and delays cause an unexpected increase in traffic to NYC because a storm finally moves away from ORD and traffic can now flow, NYC controllers need to limit the amount of traffic which can flow to NYC to what was originally scheduled. The converse is true if backups develop.
I too believe that AA made a major strategic mistake by so quickly dismantling STL given the capacity problems at ORD. Although AA does have plenty of capacity at DFW, there are some O&Ds that can’t be efficiently served going that far south. Likewise, UA may think twice about any plans to reduce DEN given that it is a workable but costly hub. DEN is within an RJs flight range of about 2/3 of the United States by geography and even more with the EMB 170. Shifting a great deal of connecting traffic to DEN would allow UA to preserve its high frequency services to the top domestic business cities while and its international services, both of which are well-supported by the local Chicago community. Flights to smaller cities which are primarily connecting in nature might well be moved to another hub.
The problem here really isn't the airlines. The problem is the FAA's outdated air traffic control system, and the FAA's total failure to implement technology that has been available for some time now which would significantly improve it. I'm amazed that airlines' government affairs people haven't been all over Congress to push ATC improvements closer to the top of the FAA agenda (I realize the neverending war on terror will always be the FAA's #1 priority). The inefficiencies of the existing ATC system cost the airlines collectively in the billions of dollars every year. You'd think this would be one where the airlines could pool their lobbying clout and get something done about it.
Problem is the aviation trust fund makes the deficit look smaller so they don't want to spend it.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
No..nothing has been publicly said indicating that UA might downsize DEN but it has been suggested. At this point, none of us knows.
The problem w/ the government affairs approach is that the airlines are so needy that they are asking for everything imaginable. The government won’t be responsive to the need to update and truly modernize the airspace system until the airline industry is stable enough that mere survival is not constantly at the forefront. Further, I’m sure the government would like to know what kind of industry and airspace needs they will face before they start investing in a new system. In reality, hub and spoke operations, which are a stress on ATC will likely constitute a much smaller portion of airline operations perhaps as soon as a few years from now.
The problem w/ the government affairs approach is that the airlines are so needy that they are asking for everything imaginable. The government won’t be responsive to the need to update and truly modernize the airspace system until the airline industry is stable enough that mere survival is not constantly at the forefront. Further, I’m sure the government would like to know what kind of industry and airspace needs they will face before they start investing in a new system. In reality, hub and spoke operations, which are a stress on ATC will likely constitute a much smaller portion of airline operations perhaps as soon as a few years from now.
Similar threads
