Runway Capacity, Safety and Airlines -- Seriously, read this.

[Overpaid Slacker]

From a former air traffic controller: http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/2008/01/air-traffic-safety-vs-capacity.html

The reason is as old as it is simple -- greed. Airlines can make more money selling 70 airplanes worth of tickets per hour than they could if they limited themselves to the 60 airplanes per hour that the runway can handle. In fairness to the airlines, it’s not in their interest to limit themselves. It is easier to sell the tickets and blame the delays on the weather or the “antiquated” air traffic control system. Especially if the flying public doesn’t understand runway capacity limits and therefore fails to notice that the “antiquated” air traffic control system is delivering more airplanes to the runways than the runways can handle.

JP

[cashflyer]

The solution is simple, and Airbus is on track.

Let's say the airline needs to move 20,000 seats per hour. (about 70 standard planes worth)
The airport can only handle 60 planes, leaving a deficit of nearly 2900.

Solution, build planes with larger capacity. Put 550 seats in the plane, and you only need 37 planes per hour!

Problem solved.

[Superman]

You are apparently confused and misinformed, JP. Plenty of Pelicanheads here on OT will tell you that unregulated private businesses will deliver services and products precisely targeted and suited to the needs of the public. This notion that private businesses, in the absence of regulatory control, will behave in ways that are inconsistent with the public good is heresy. Probably caused by liberals, their media, and terrorists.

People need to be aware of this, and also they need to feel sorry for the poor airlines that are having such a tough time that they are filing for bankruptcy, reliably and predictably, months before a labor contract negotiation. They need our support.

Oh, BTW, I work at an airport and can report that each and every airline can schedule a flight that takes off at 9:00 am. So......six or eight planes can be scheduled to fly simultaneously.

[Moneyguy1]

But did you sleep at a Holiday Inn last night?

[cairns]

Geez Supe are you just trolling for an argument?

[Moneyguy1]

Bigger aircraft ma not be the answer. I seem to recall that the Titanic was built to carry more passengers too.

[stevepaa]

note.
on the Avianca crash "The NTSB report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per IATA guidelines"


on the AA crash "The A300-600, which took off just minutes after a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of very turbulent air. The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the enormous stress on the rudder was due solely to the first officer's over-aggressive rudder inputs, and not the wake caused by the earlier Japan Airlines 747 that had crossed that area. If the first officer had, in fact, stopped making additional inputs the aircraft would have stabilized."


and the FAA has worked to limit flights from airports but it is free enterprise that opposes it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/nyregion/26mbrfs-jfk.html

[dtw]

Soup, we've been through this - the correct term is "Tursts".

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The solution is simple, and Airbus is on track.

Let's say the airline needs to move 20,000 seats per hour. (about 70 standard planes worth)
The airport can only handle 60 planes, leaving a deficit of nearly 2900.

Solution, build planes with larger capacity. Put 550 seats in the plane, and you only need 37 planes per hour!

Problem solved.

Or, just sell 70 planes worth of 550 seat planes, and apologize as usual.

Oh yeah, we'd have to buy xxx of those Airbusses (or . . . um . . . Airbii) at $xxx,000,000 apiece.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The solution is simple, and Airbus is on track.

Let's say the airline needs to move 20,000 seats per hour. (about 70 standard planes worth)
The airport can only handle 60 planes, leaving a deficit of nearly 2900.

Solution, build planes with larger capacity. Put 550 seats in the plane, and you only need 37 planes per hour!

Problem solved.

No dice.

Where are you going to park that monster? And once you do get it a gate, how long is it going to take to get the 550 off the plane? How long is it going to take to stock it up for the next flight?

[Gogar]

Or how much does it cost to buy one? And what's the lead time on a plane that isn't even out of the testing stage yet?

[TechnoViking]

Free markets do allocate scarce resources better than centrally planned ones. The debate on that front ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The problem here is somewhat of a "tragedy of the commons". The airlines are acting in their own self interest (as we would expect them to do). The airlines are sharing a publicly-owned resource (the airport), and it is being managed by a government agency (air traffic control).

That's when things get sticky.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

And once you do get it a gate, how long is it going to take to get the 550 off the plane? How long is it going to take to stock it up for the next flight?

With bigger planes must come bigger doors!

Or, park it sideways and load simultaneously from the front and the rear!

Or, just announce that the plane leaves in 15 minutes. Anyone not on the plane gets left behind, no refunds. I'm sure people would learn to put down the phones and lattes, and hustle up a bit.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by cairns

Geez Supe are you just trolling for an argument?

Rhetorical question, isn't it?

A380 isn't an answer, it would be just as cheap to build new airports. Most airports need MAJOR remodels to the facilities, runways, and taxiways to accomodate that big bird.

The entire issue is just silly, like the government opening up "additional airspace" during the holidays. As if that will help the aircraft sitting on the ground. You can only have so many aircraft taking off and landing from one airport. Period. The airlines are only to blame, because they schedule more flights than the airports can support. It's very simple.

I say keep it up! The worse airline service becomes, the more business jets we sell!

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by Martin Smith

Free markets do allocate scarce resources better than centrally planned ones. The debate on that front ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The problem here is somewhat of a "tragedy of the commons". The airlines are acting in their own self interest (as we would expect them to do). The airlines are sharing a publicly-owned resource (the airport), and it is being managed by a government agency (air traffic control).

That's when things get sticky.

Right-o. Inflicting costs (or using up a resourse) in a manner that causes you to suffer a disproportionately small fraction of the gain you realize (so small, in fact, that you are not disincentivized to avoid).

Let the airports handle it -- a stiff surcharge for traffic in excess of __ of an airline's aircraft per hour, weighted averaged for weather and time of day. OK, that's a crude stab at it, but something like that. Right now there's only profit to be made by airlines for supersaturating the runways... and b/c they're "all doing it", no one or few of them will suffer disproportionate $ or goodwill losses from their passengers. Fine 'em. Or let the airports sell landing credits... If you REALLY REALLY want to land ten aircraft an hour (on average) at our airport, the fee will be $X per landing. Now... who wants to open the airport landing credit exchange with me?

I think this is why Boeing has the right idea (and not Airbus). They're planning on the increased use of regional airports, rather than huge hubs, because most of those runways are not working nearly at capacity, and now you can have smaller aircraft (using smaller runways and smaller airports) running much longer routes, that heretofore only the heavies could run.

Airbus bet the company on the whale/hub theory ... and there's just not enough runways or minutes for that theory to work. MHO

JP

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by cairns

Geez Supe are you just trolling for an argument?

generally yes

[rattlsnak]

Its all built into the block time. Thats why when you leave the gate ontime, wait 20 minutes in the 'money line', you still get to where you're going on time. Its called historical data and it is used in flight planning as well as arrival times.

Lets take a 9:00 am departure........if it only takes 1:04 to fly from ATL to MCO, why is it scheduled for 1:54? Because historical data shows that it will take that long at that time of the day. The same trip at 9:00 pm is only blocked at 1:22. Its all about departing on time, and arriving on time.

Abnormal weather on the other hand?? Guidleines state to multiply the times by an average of 40%.

[304065]

I don't really understand the whole safety concern. In-trail separation is established by the controllers. Departure clearances are set by the controllers.

You can schedule 100 flights per hour if you want, but all that is going to happen is you will end up with enormous delays and cancellations-- the system won't absorb more flow than can be accomodated at both ends-- the number of takeoffs equals the number of landings.

Nextgen, or ADS-B as it's known, uses a Mode S transponder to encode the airplane's position and altitude and other data, from which ground-based receivers can compute the track. This is simply an evolution of Mode C (altitude encoding) but this time you put highly accurate GPS-derived position information on the beacon, which makes knowing where airplanes are and where they are headed easier, and in the future, can reduce controller workload by allowing the aircraft themselves to manage their own traffic conflicts, sort of a super- TCAS.

For a couple years here at LGA the situation was absolutely freakign horrible-- every flight leaving in the morning had 90 minutes of taxi time, and they blew so much air into the schedule that an hour flight was blocked for three.

Part of the problem is RJs and corporate traffic, hate to say it. The business traveler wants frequency and nonstop service, and that's what RJs offer. But they require the same block of airspace as an airplane carrying 200 passengers. The same amount of passengers divided by a smaller number of seats per plane means more aircraft, which results in a capacity problem.

The solution. . . as ever. . . is to let the MARKET work it out. Want to fly out of LGA, Mr. Business traveler? How about $500 instead of a flight for $279, to compensate for the reduced throughput? The same flight out of Islip, a lot cheaper.

The real problem is the lack of pricing power caused by below-market operating costs as a result of operating in Chapter 11 more or less permanently. Look up Bildisco v. Bildisco sometime, a collective bargaining agreement is just another voidable contract in BK. Once pricing power returns, economics can come back into play and rationalize supply.

[rattlsnak]

Theres more to it than RJs being a problem. In most cases, and RJ has taken over a route that a larger plane was on before, so it creates no additional traffic. So you have a full RJ or a half empty MD88 flying the same route. The problem is simply what the article stated. Airlines scheduling 100 flights out of a 60 flight time slot, and then throw in the unexpected,. like corporate and weather,. and BOOM......
I will agree that there are RJs going to more places more frequently though.

Trust me, I've been flying out fo ATL for more than 10 years. The controllers do their best to keep things moving. It is common place that you hear 'clear for takeoff' when the guy in front of you has just been issued the same clearance and has just started moving. The timing is down to a science. By the time you move forward, turn the corner and line up, spool up, and start to move, the guy in front of you has JUSTcleared his mains off the runway.


Speaking of LGA and RJs,. here is the view of RWY 22 at LGA from an RJ... (obviously a SLOW day at LGA)

arriving, then departing........

[Overpaid Slacker]

wow, you sure arrive at a much lower altitude than you depart!



JP