The end of the LGA Crew Base

[BoeingBoy]

One of our LGA F/O's finally figured out the problem. Marketing is waiting for NYC ...to get bigger!....Busflt321

The way it looks, if NYC gets much bigger we'll be down to only Shuttle flights......

In 2001, LGA served 22.33 million passengers, of which US carried 4.57 million (20.5%)

In 2002, traffic declined and LGA served 20.13 million passengers, of which US carried 4.42 million (22.0%)

In 2003, traffic declined further with 19.47 million passengers using LGA, of which US carried 2.97 million (15.3%)

In 2004, LGA traffic began it's rebound with 21.47 million passengers, with US carrying 2.43 million (11.3%)

In 2005, the rebound continued with 23.20 million passengers using LGA, of which US carried 2.44 million (10.5%)

Finally, for the 12 months thru May 2006, 24.39 passengers used LGA, with US carrying 2.35 million of them (9.6%)

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

As much as some people detest the idea of further airline consolidation, if the current trends continue without some rationalization, we may see airports like LGA completely dominated by tiny commuter-sized planes as the legacies continue to lose passengers to the rapidly growing LCCs. Combine that with the likely trend of fewer and fewer high-yield business traveler whales willing to pay whatever it takes to get somewhere the next day - and it doesn't look good.

Smaller and smaller airplanes didn't just show up overnight because customers loudly demanded them - they slowly took over as airlines struggled with smaller and smaller loads of high-yield pax. And as great as deregulation has been to the infrequent traveler (who can now afford to be a frequent traveler as fares have declined in real terms ever since 1978), deregulation has meant more and more airlines flying people between the same destinations.

Something's gotta give, and that's been average airplane size in use for domestic flights. In the 1970s, DC-10s and 747s flew many trunk routes. Today, domestic widebody service is rare. And RJs continue to proliferate, even on DCA-LGA-BOS (AA's insane attempt to build what it could never seem quite able to buy - the NE Shuttle).

Arbitrarily ordering airlines to increase the size of their average aircraft at LGA won't magically make those flights successful. If the six legacies at LGA thought they could make profits flying solely 737s, 757s and A320s (or larger) at LGA, they'd already be doing it.

If the six current legacies were somehow combined into three survivors, and those survivors jetisoned some of our surplus hubs, those three might have enough pax to make bigger airplanes work on busy trunk routes. Even in and out of LGA.

 

[whlinder]

If US replaces some RJs/Dash 8s at LGA with the Q400, won't that push the average plane size up quite a bit?

 

[LGA / 037]

Does'nt America West have cost of living premiums in their high cost of living cities ? Since they are calling all the shots now maybe they should implement that policy . They could also do that in BOS,DCA and PHL .

 

[PA18]

Unless, of course, the folks in Tempe have to relearn the lesson that you don't mix Shuttle and non-Shuttle flying with the same plane on the same day.

Jim,

Unfortunately, Tempe has not learned from the mistakes of CCY regarding the scheduling of crews on the Shuttle.

There are now many trips that have crews hopping between mainline and Shuttle flights in the same duty day when they transit BOS, DCA, or LGA.

How is the agent in LGA supposed to explain to the full-fare business flier that the 4:00 p.m. Shuttle to BOS is delayed because of thunderstorms in CLT?

Especially on a day when there isn't a cloud in the sky in the northeast.

 

[LGA / 037]

[
There are now many trips that have crews hopping between mainline and Shuttle flights in the same duty day when they transit BOS, DCA, or LGA.



And this policy which is called "the triangle" is to get one extra cycle of flying for 6 A319's one in each LGA/DCA/BOS market. Sounds kind of stupid when the plan is to fly the E190 in off peak times in Shuttle markets starting Q1 or Q2 of next year!

 

[LGA / 037]

If US replaces some RJs/Dash 8s at LGA with the Q400, won't that push the average plane size up quite a bit?

Actually, Chatauqua is pulling from US and dedicated 45 RJ's to CO. Although it hasnt been scheduled or been announced yet, it looks like alot of flying will be substituted with the E170 which are non-MidAtlantic. Good ridance to 145's, You cant fill them up with a full load of Customers and bags especially now that customers are checking even more bags then ever due to security.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

If the six current legacies were somehow combined into three survivors, and those survivors jetisoned some of our surplus hubs, those three might have enough pax to make bigger airplanes work on busy trunk routes. Even in and out of LGA.

That's what Ive been saying-- Rationalize hubs and equipment for a more stable, efficient industry.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The current pilot permanent bid(s), which run through the end of the year, does not have the EMB-190 on the Shuttle. The aircraft will be crewed out of PHL with initial routes current mainline city pairs. Marketing and Planning is looking at placing the EMB-190 on weekend Shuttle flights as I indicated earlier. John John, did you miss when I typed, “However, dependent upon marketing and planning decision making Andrew Norcella could place these aircraft on weekend Shuttle flights when loads are lower, dependent on other market opportunities?â€￾

In my opinion, the EMB-190 is the right size aircraft for the LGA-DCA and LGA-BOS markets and it makes sense to put the aircraft on these shuttle routes, but the BOS-DCA market would be better served with an A319.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

but the BOS-DCA market would be better served with an A319.

I did neglect to put those average load factors in the earlier post, didn't I....

For May, 2006:

BOS-DCA 59.4%
DCA-BOS 65.3% (the "bright" spot in the Shuttle LF's)

From strictly a capacity standpoint, it seems even the BOS/DCA market could stand a smaller plane (like the E-190) during off-peak times/days.

With the looming "average seats/flight" restrictions at LGA, it could be that the BOS-DCA Shuttle market will eventually see more downsizing of equipment than the other Shuttle routes, since these two routes don't affect LGA.

Jim

 

[TheLarkAscending]

John John, did you miss when I typed, “However, dependent upon marketing and planning decision making Andrew Norcella could place these aircraft on weekend Shuttle flights when loads are lower, dependent on other market opportunities?â€￾

Is Andrew Norcella, by chance, related to Andrew Nocella?

 

[PA18]

I did neglect to put those average load factors in the earlier post, didn't I....

For May, 2006:

BOS-DCA 59.4%
DCA-BOS 65.3% (the "bright" spot in the Shuttle LF's)

From strictly a capacity standpoint, it seems even the BOS/DCA market could stand a smaller plane (like the E-190) during off-peak times/days.

With the looming "average seats/flight" restrictions at LGA, it could be that the BOS-DCA Shuttle market will eventually see more downsizing of equipment than the other Shuttle routes, since these two routes don't affect LGA.

Jim

Jim,

One reason for the higher LF's on the BOS-DCA Shuttles is the use of DCA as a mini-connecting hub between BOS and Florida.

More than once, when observing the passengers deplaning those flights, I have commented, "These are not Shuttle passengers." Especially on the weekends.

This is absurdly obvious during the winter school vacation weeks, when a cabinet secretary (or lobbyist) who just dropped several hundred bucks for a walk-up Shuttle ticket finds him- or herself sitting next to the muscle-shirted, flip-flopped, fat couple with the three hyper-active kids on $39 fares to Disney World.

I haven't seen the Winter '07 schedule yet, but one can only hope that Marketing will realize that more than 50% of the passengers that depart BOS in the wintertime are heading for a destination in Florida. Especially in light of the fact that jetBlue can't add non-stops to Florida fast enough, and Spirit is now operating right out of US Airways' own Terminal B in BOS.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

One reason for the higher LF's on the BOS-DCA Shuttles is the use of DCA as a mini-connecting hub between BOS and Florida.

I figured that there's be more connecting traffic @ DCA than at LGA, at least on the more popular "leisure" travel days.

There's presumably some connecting traffic to/from the flights between DCA & LGA, since the only mainline alternative is to connect in CLT (or use the RJ/Dash service between LGA & PHL).

Still, from strictly a capacity standpoint any of the Shuttle routes are ripe for the E-190's at off-peak times and days. With the impending seat issues with LGA, however, it could be that the DCA-BOS market would be the easiest to reduce Shuttle aircraft size on.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

I think LGA may be doomed as a crew base. It will be replaced by a NYC crew base with triple-airport responsibility. There is already a smallish West presence at JFK with 6 mainline flights a day. There is no reason not to build on this presence and make the NYC crews responsible for covering trips to/from JFK (or EWR, eventually.) It certainly is not a re-invention of the wheel...other carriers have done it forever.

I doubt that we will see 190's on the shuttle any time soon. I think the 190 would be ideal for midday shuttle flights, but until maintenance has a track record with this new airplane, it would not be wise to place it into shuttle service especially now that there are no longer shuttle-standby airplanes. The 190 will be in shuttle service maybe by the last quarter of 2007.

Loretta Bove, LGA Station Mgr., has told me that the company is trying to get PANYNJ to loosen the perimeter rule for our operations into our west hubs, PHX and LAS. In light of the FAA's new push to get larger airplanes into LGA, it would not surprise me if the PANYNJ specified a minimum number of seats for any flight exceeding the perimeter rule. If they set it at 150 seat minimum, for example, USAirways would have to fly a 757 on the route. The 321 flat-out does not have the performance to get airborne at LGA with a long-haul fuel load, and I doubt the sardine-seated 320 could do it, either.

It's interesting that a few years back the PANYNJ was trying to force this same issue of minimum aircraft size at LGA and the ATA and DOT cried foul. Now that the FAA has "invented this brand new idea," it suddenly seems to be getting traction.