United Pulling out of JFK

[ChasenSFO]

The TRUE premium service would be SFO/LAX-LGA. If or when the perimeter rule is lifted, I'd be very surprised if those routes didn't start. I've actually know wealthy frequent flyers who split their time between SF and NYC to connect in DEN or ORD rather than opt for the non-stops as they said it was that much of a pain for them to get home from EWR/JFK vs. LGA.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The TRUE premium service would be SFO/LAX-JFK. If or when the perimeter rule is lifted, I'd be very surprised if those routes didn't start. I've actually know wealthy frequent flyers who split their time between SF and NYC to connect in DEN or ORD rather than opt for the non-stops as they said it was that much of a pain for them to get home from EWR/JFK vs. LGA.

You mean SFO/LAX-LGA?

That'd be a long transcon for a 7,000 ft runway. Doing DCA-SFO we can sometimes get tight. LGA is even longer distance.

 

[X-Forces]

The TRUE premium service would be SFO/LAX-JFK. If or when the perimeter rule is lifted, I'd be very surprised if those routes didn't start. I've actually know wealthy frequent flyers who split their time between SF and NYC to connect in DEN or ORD rather than opt for the non-stops as they said it was that much of a pain for them to get home from EWR/JFK vs. LGA.

I think we already have that.

 

[X-Forces]

You mean SFO/LAX-LGA?

That'd be a long transcon for a 7,000 ft runway. Doing DCA-SFO we can sometimes get tight. LGA is even longer distance.

It is all the perimeter rule, nothing to do with the length of LGAs runways. 737s, 320s, and 757s are in and out of LGA all day long. There is not much difference between JFK-LAX and LGA-LAX distance wise.

 

[Kingairer]

It is all the perimeter rule, nothing to do with the length of LGAs runways. 737s, 320s, and 757s are in and out of LGA all day long. There is not much difference between JFK-LAX and LGA-LAX distance wise.

Runway length would certainly play a factor.

 

[X-Forces]

Runway length would certainly play a factor.

In the ability to perform such a flight? How?

 

[amorris311]

Runway length would certainly play a factor.

Delta used to run a Saturday service a few years back. It's doable.

 

[mshunter]

It actually makes perfect sense.

How so? Learn me sumthin.

 

[Kingairer]

In the ability to perform such a flight? How?

A packed airbus is going to have trouble getting to SFO/LAX performance wise out of LGA. If they use a biz class style airplane like the 321T then it would be less of an issue. 737/757 are probably fine.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I just have a difficult time believing that there isn't enough traffic for United to carry in and out of JFK to make money on.

For 5 years I flew very regularly between JFK and IAD. We were almost always full.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

It is all the perimeter rule, nothing to do with the length of LGAs runways. 737s, 320s, and 757s are in and out of LGA all day long. There is not much difference between JFK-LAX and LGA-LAX distance wise.

Arooo? You do realize JFK's runways are very long compared to LGA's 7,000 footers? Of course those planes can get into/out of LGA all day long. But an A320 approaching max takeoff weight on a hot day in summer or wet/contaminated runway (summers and winters) and you're not going to take a full load out of LGA to SFO/LAX. We'd have some pretty decent weight restrictions. Heck, even without the wet/hot/contaminated conditions, depending on winds, you could still be weight restricted on a 7,000 foot runway going to do a transcon.

Case in point, we do BOS-SFO/LAX, and yes that is a longer distance than LGA-SFO/LAX, but still to make the point, there were a couple times we departed runway 9 (7,000) and went across the country. But there were many times we were just too heavy to make that runway work and had to request a longer runway at BOS.

When we first started SFO-DCA, we used A319s. And not just any A319s. They modified the engine computer chip for more power. Currently, our A320s are 27,000 lbs thrust each engine and A319 is 23,500lbs each. The modification they made was to make several of our A319s to a 27,000lbs thrust engine. So we basically got A320 power in an A319. Now that was a rocket! We used these to do full flights into/out of DCA going to/from SFO.

But then they realized the 119 seat jet wasn't enough to meet demand and we needed our 146-149 seat A320s on that route. So, we switched the route to A320s and soon thereafter all the A319s were de-rated back to 23,500 lbs thrust. It was fun while it lasted!

 

[X-Forces]

A packed airbus is going to have trouble getting to SFO/LAX performance wise out of LGA. If they use a biz class style airplane like the 321T then it would be less of an issue. 737/757 are probably fine.

MTOW distance for the 320 is less then 7000'

The 320 does JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO everyday, hell. they go BOS-LAX without issue. (At least ours do)

So what is the issue exactly?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Delta used to run a Saturday service a few years back. It's doable.

Of course it's doable..... it just depends on the weather, winds, passenger load, and cargo. It's all in the numbers, dear Watson.

 

[X-Forces]

Arooo? You do realize JFK's runways are very long compared to LGA's 7,000 footers? Of course those planes can get into/out of LGA all day long. But an A320 approaching max takeoff weight on a hot day in summer or wet/contaminated runway (summers and winters) and you're not going to take a full load out of LGA to SFO/LAX. We'd have some pretty decent weight restrictions. Heck, even without the wet/hot/contaminated conditions, depending on winds, you could still be weight restricted on a 7,000 foot runway going to do a transcon.

Case in point, we do BOS-SFO/LAX, and yes that is a longer distance than LGA-SFO/LAX, but still to make the point, there were a couple times we departed runway 9 (7,000) and went across the country. But there were many times we were just too heavy to make that runway work and had to request a longer runway at BOS.

When we first started SFO-DCA, we used A319s. And not just any A319s. They modified the engine computer chip for more power. Currently, our A320s are 27,000 lbs thrust each engine and A319 is 23,500lbs each. The modification they made was to make several of our A319s to a 27,000lbs thrust engine. So we basically got A320 power in an A319. Now that was a rocket! We used these to do full flights into/out of DCA going to/from SFO.

But then they realized the 119 seat jet wasn't enough to meet demand and we needed our 146-149 seat A320s on that route. So, we switched the route to A320s and soon thereafter all the A319s were de-rated back to 23,500 lbs thrust. It was fun while it lasted!

I see where you're coming from. However, it really amounts to "In the worst possible flight conditions, there is a chance that you might have a weight restricted aircraft"

Hell, this is AA's SOP for their MadDog fleet. It doesn't stop them from servicing routes with aircraft pushing back from the gate with empty seats. For average, day to day, flight conditions, a 320, 73, or 75 could service LAX or SFO from LGA without issue.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

MTOW distance for the 320 is less then 7000'

The 320 does JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO everyday, hell. they go BOS-LAX without issue. (At least ours do)

So what is the issue exactly?

The 7,000 foot runway is an issue, for starters.

It's not just MTOW distance.

Here are all the limitations for a given runway. You're limited by one of these...........

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I see where you're coming from. However, it really amounts to "In the worst possible flight conditions, there is a chance that you might have a weight restricted aircraft"

Hell, this is AA's SOP for their MadDog fleet. It doesn't stop them from servicing routes with aircraft pushing back from the gate with empty seats. For average, day to day, flight conditions, a 320, 73, or 75 could service LAX or SFO from LGA without issue.

Do you fly the A320?

I fly it routinely on transcon markets out of BOS, JFK, EWR, DCA.......... to SFO and LAX. I'm going with personal experience launching from DCA's ~7000 ft runway and BOS's runway 9 (7,000 ft).

 

[amorris311]

Of course it's doable..... it just depends on the weather, winds, passenger load, and cargo. It's all in the numbers, dear Watson.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[amorris311]

Do you fly the A320?

I fly it routinely on transcon markets out of BOS, JFK, EWR, DCA.......... to SFO and LAX. I'm going with personal experience launching from DCA's ~7000 ft runway and BOS's runway 9 (7,000 ft).

He does. He actually does a lot of the same flying you do too!

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

To clarify my above, we're talking about being close to max takeoff weight. That typically implies a full flight and usually an alternate. But if a flight isn't full, then it's usually not a problem.

Most airline revenue/performance departments can work together and can figure out weights ahead of time and will weight-restrict a flight to make it work.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

He does. He actually does a lot of the same flying you do too!

Haha ok, well then I assume it's the airline with the big hub in Boston. In that case, how many times has @X-Forces been successful going off runway 9 on a transcon to SFO? I've had several. But then again, I've also had quite a few where runway 9 just wasn't going to cut it.