FAA "disses" O'Hare
- Thread starter pilot602
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
If there are so many delays, why don't they expand Midway to share O'hare's flights?
If there are so many delays, why don't they expand Midway to share O'hare's flights?
adreamer
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
Good morning:
Expand Midway? When mayor of Chicago close down Megis becuase of this excuse - National Security(scare of a small GA plane fly into sears towers). By the way, for people who does not know. Mayor of Chicago confessed he closed down Megis for opening Casino. In my opinion, they should just shut down O'Hare and Midway all together. If anyone live near these airportscan tell, it does not take too much deviation from course, these planes would hit building.
My own personal experience - ready to get on the plane for the flight back down to GA around 8PM. When I arrived to airport, the flight cancel due to poor visbility. At the same time, I saw an United express CRJ sat on the ramp with full load of passenger with APU running for 5 hours. The reason - because poor visbility(Chicago Center refused accept any more traffic into ORD or MDW, according to local ATC)
adreamer
Good morning:
Expand Midway? When mayor of Chicago close down Megis becuase of this excuse - National Security(scare of a small GA plane fly into sears towers). By the way, for people who does not know. Mayor of Chicago confessed he closed down Megis for opening Casino. In my opinion, they should just shut down O'Hare and Midway all together. If anyone live near these airportscan tell, it does not take too much deviation from course, these planes would hit building.
My own personal experience - ready to get on the plane for the flight back down to GA around 8PM. When I arrived to airport, the flight cancel due to poor visbility. At the same time, I saw an United express CRJ sat on the ramp with full load of passenger with APU running for 5 hours. The reason - because poor visbility(Chicago Center refused accept any more traffic into ORD or MDW, according to local ATC)
adreamer
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
I think closing Meigs down might have had a little bit of an impact on this. Now those slow bug smashers have to land at O'Hare, which slows down the airliners, which increases delays, etc.....
[/ QUOTE ]
There are very few if any bug smashers at ORD as a result of Meigs closing. Heck, we don't even go there much in corp jets. All the Meigs SEL and light twins go to smaller satellites (PWK, MDW etc).
ORD is a Joke. It's one of the most inefficient airports in the country in terms of operations. Especially ground ops. And the goofiest taxi routes on the planet.
RJs are a big problem (sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ). They don't climb fast, and they don't go fast. Throw classic 737s in that group too.
It drives us crazy to get behind someone on an arrival 200nm out doing 250kts above FL310. And a lot of controllers aren't willing to let fast planes go first. Not just ours, but faster airliners AND corp jets. Why do controllers take :40 minutes to climb a jet to FL390 that is capable of doing it in :15? Why do they taxi you from parking near 18L, 4 miles away to depart on 18R?
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
[ QUOTE ]
I think closing Meigs down might have had a little bit of an impact on this. Now those slow bug smashers have to land at O'Hare, which slows down the airliners, which increases delays, etc.....
[/ QUOTE ]
There are very few if any bug smashers at ORD as a result of Meigs closing. Heck, we don't even go there much in corp jets. All the Meigs SEL and light twins go to smaller satellites (PWK, MDW etc).
ORD is a Joke. It's one of the most inefficient airports in the country in terms of operations. Especially ground ops. And the goofiest taxi routes on the planet.
RJs are a big problem (sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ). They don't climb fast, and they don't go fast. Throw classic 737s in that group too.
It drives us crazy to get behind someone on an arrival 200nm out doing 250kts above FL310. And a lot of controllers aren't willing to let fast planes go first. Not just ours, but faster airliners AND corp jets. Why do controllers take :40 minutes to climb a jet to FL390 that is capable of doing it in :15? Why do they taxi you from parking near 18L, 4 miles away to depart on 18R?
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
What are you trying to do, NJA_Capt - make airlines profitable again?
That common sense crap doesn't belong here....
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
What are you trying to do, NJA_Capt - make airlines profitable again?
That common sense crap doesn't belong here....
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to do, NJA_Capt - make airlines profitable again?
That common sense crap doesn't belong here....
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Oooops! Sorry, I forgot .....
Aviation Rule #2(c): If it makes sense, you can't do it that way.
[ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to do, NJA_Capt - make airlines profitable again?
That common sense crap doesn't belong here....
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Oooops! Sorry, I forgot .....
Aviation Rule #2(c): If it makes sense, you can't do it that way.
PurduePilot
New Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
[/ QUOTE ]
From someone who has just graduated from Aviation Management at Purdue, allow me to pick apart this scenario... sorry. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Let's say UAL does cut their flights down and consolidate them to 2 777s, then that would give AA an opportunity to come in there and start running their 737s at multiple times. That would suck the traffic off UAL's 777s and thus hurt UAL financially.
If AA and UAL both consolidate their filghts to 777s or 767s and run fewer flights (and how could they do this without running amock of antitrust activities I do not know because they'd have to collobrate on this), then JetBlue will come in there and pick up the slack.
Now let's take a look at this from a business passenger (bpax) standpoint. Your meeting has just wrapped up and you want to go home 4 hours early. You have no desire to tour the city and just want to get home (and who hasn't been there?). You arrive at the airport to find that the next earliest flight doesn't depart for another 6 hours (which was the one you were scheduled on anyhow). Now you have to wait 6 hours for that flight at an airport in a city you have no desire to be in.
The airlines are an ogolopoly and they're extremely elastic; fares go up, traffic goes down (and vice versa). Then throw in some competiton and you can see why airlines often price below their BE point just to retain traffic.
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
[/ QUOTE ]
From someone who has just graduated from Aviation Management at Purdue, allow me to pick apart this scenario... sorry. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Let's say UAL does cut their flights down and consolidate them to 2 777s, then that would give AA an opportunity to come in there and start running their 737s at multiple times. That would suck the traffic off UAL's 777s and thus hurt UAL financially.
If AA and UAL both consolidate their filghts to 777s or 767s and run fewer flights (and how could they do this without running amock of antitrust activities I do not know because they'd have to collobrate on this), then JetBlue will come in there and pick up the slack.
Now let's take a look at this from a business passenger (bpax) standpoint. Your meeting has just wrapped up and you want to go home 4 hours early. You have no desire to tour the city and just want to get home (and who hasn't been there?). You arrive at the airport to find that the next earliest flight doesn't depart for another 6 hours (which was the one you were scheduled on anyhow). Now you have to wait 6 hours for that flight at an airport in a city you have no desire to be in.
The airlines are an ogolopoly and they're extremely elastic; fares go up, traffic goes down (and vice versa). Then throw in some competiton and you can see why airlines often price below their BE point just to retain traffic.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
From someone who has worked with 6 airlines (19 years)...... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif
Just like Nuclear disarmament. Each side eliminates 1 flight/plane at a time until it is a manageable level and no one is allowed to make more nukes (Jet Blue/SWA). Total slots at ORD (airport of choice) would be decreased in relation to the scale back. Therefore, no one is going to run amuck swiping fares. Collaboration is not necessarily needed. The airport authority can decrease the usage allowed by both carriers simultaneously when their gate leases come up for renewal. AA and UAL aren't competing in high density areas out of ORD. For instance AA would decrease flights to DFW and UAL would decrease its flights to DEN. They aren't in competing markets.
As far as waiting. Let them wait until the flight is scheduled. You don't make dinner reservations for 7:00 and then show up at 5:30 complaining that your table isn't ready. I read the departure screens in terminals quite a lot. It amazes me that one airline can have two flights to the same city, departing within 2-5 minutes of each other. Always MD80s or 737s. That is absolutely ridiculous. The airlines have been using the multi-flight per day business plan for many years now and it is obviously not working. Putting another $50 Million asset on a route for John and Jane Doe to leave town because they are bored doesn't make sense. Running 2 737s half full instead of 1 full one doesn't make profits either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Having 9 price categories for each seat on a plane is crazy too. I know....cost per seat mile. Airline travel has imploded in the last few years. Now you pay more and get less. Great way to treat customers, nickel and dime them to death, take away rewards and amenities, then act surprised when they don't come back. Of course the behavior of passengers has changed a great deal too. Cause and effect.
From someone who has worked with 6 airlines (19 years)...... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif
Just like Nuclear disarmament. Each side eliminates 1 flight/plane at a time until it is a manageable level and no one is allowed to make more nukes (Jet Blue/SWA). Total slots at ORD (airport of choice) would be decreased in relation to the scale back. Therefore, no one is going to run amuck swiping fares. Collaboration is not necessarily needed. The airport authority can decrease the usage allowed by both carriers simultaneously when their gate leases come up for renewal. AA and UAL aren't competing in high density areas out of ORD. For instance AA would decrease flights to DFW and UAL would decrease its flights to DEN. They aren't in competing markets.
As far as waiting. Let them wait until the flight is scheduled. You don't make dinner reservations for 7:00 and then show up at 5:30 complaining that your table isn't ready. I read the departure screens in terminals quite a lot. It amazes me that one airline can have two flights to the same city, departing within 2-5 minutes of each other. Always MD80s or 737s. That is absolutely ridiculous. The airlines have been using the multi-flight per day business plan for many years now and it is obviously not working. Putting another $50 Million asset on a route for John and Jane Doe to leave town because they are bored doesn't make sense. Running 2 737s half full instead of 1 full one doesn't make profits either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Having 9 price categories for each seat on a plane is crazy too. I know....cost per seat mile. Airline travel has imploded in the last few years. Now you pay more and get less. Great way to treat customers, nickel and dime them to death, take away rewards and amenities, then act surprised when they don't come back. Of course the behavior of passengers has changed a great deal too. Cause and effect.
flyover
New Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
I don't know of many half empty airplanes now a days. Load factors are unbelievably high right now. Everyone tries to rationalize their schedules. But since all the carriers serve virtually all the markets, no one is willing to give up frequency.
You say UAL has no competition from ORD to DEN. That is simply not true. I can buy seats on CAL, DAL, AMR, NWA, Frontier, USAir (and I'm sure I've missed some) from ORD to DEN. Throw in MDW and you've got one or two more.
The solution, and as far as I can tell the only solution, is fewer hub carriers and fewer hubs.
I don't know of many half empty airplanes now a days. Load factors are unbelievably high right now. Everyone tries to rationalize their schedules. But since all the carriers serve virtually all the markets, no one is willing to give up frequency.
You say UAL has no competition from ORD to DEN. That is simply not true. I can buy seats on CAL, DAL, AMR, NWA, Frontier, USAir (and I'm sure I've missed some) from ORD to DEN. Throw in MDW and you've got one or two more.
The solution, and as far as I can tell the only solution, is fewer hub carriers and fewer hubs.
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
My favorite is having to climb at 250 up into the flight levels, taking a massive vector for the climb and then being able to resume normal climb speed to altitude.
Argh!
Usually it's when I have food that I'm waiting to eat at cruise altitude.
My favorite is having to climb at 250 up into the flight levels, taking a massive vector for the climb and then being able to resume normal climb speed to altitude.
Argh!
Usually it's when I have food that I'm waiting to eat at cruise altitude.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RJs are a big problem (sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ). They don't climb fast, and they don't go fast. Throw classic 737s in that group too.
It drives us crazy to get behind someone on an arrival 200nm out doing 250kts above FL310. And a lot of controllers aren't willing to let fast planes go first. Not just ours, but faster airliners AND corp jets. Why do controllers take :40 minutes to climb a jet to FL390 that is capable of doing it in :15? Why do they taxi you from parking near 18L, 4 miles away to depart on 18R?
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
[/ QUOTE ]
There arent many airliners that are going to be doing .92 enroute, Sorry. RJs range from around .77-.82 in cruise. If someone is going .84 and someone else is doing .81 even though its faster its not like they if they are allowed to "pass" theyll go wizzin by. Why 18R? Maybe they keep all the east bound traffic on one side and on the west on the other, or something like that.
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters. Its a Hub, were people COnnect. You start taking out options for people to connect and you have 4 hour layovers, or less connections all together, then people drive or chose another airport or air carrier.
AA has a "nice" airport in STL that could be used more as a reliever, but a year ago they decided against that to make STL O & D and not a hub.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RJs are a big problem (sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ). They don't climb fast, and they don't go fast. Throw classic 737s in that group too.
It drives us crazy to get behind someone on an arrival 200nm out doing 250kts above FL310. And a lot of controllers aren't willing to let fast planes go first. Not just ours, but faster airliners AND corp jets. Why do controllers take :40 minutes to climb a jet to FL390 that is capable of doing it in :15? Why do they taxi you from parking near 18L, 4 miles away to depart on 18R?
I agree with the previous poster. Quit flying (12) MD80s between ORD and DFW (etc....) and use 1/3 as many widebodies. The airlines aren't concerned about feeding the passengers, why should they care if the pax want to leave at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00? How about (2) 777s? You can leave at 12:00 or 18:00? It eases airspace congestion, because few airplanes are flying and eases maint cost, crew costs, landing fees, operating expense.
[/ QUOTE ]
There arent many airliners that are going to be doing .92 enroute, Sorry. RJs range from around .77-.82 in cruise. If someone is going .84 and someone else is doing .81 even though its faster its not like they if they are allowed to "pass" theyll go wizzin by. Why 18R? Maybe they keep all the east bound traffic on one side and on the west on the other, or something like that.
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters. Its a Hub, were people COnnect. You start taking out options for people to connect and you have 4 hour layovers, or less connections all together, then people drive or chose another airport or air carrier.
AA has a "nice" airport in STL that could be used more as a reliever, but a year ago they decided against that to make STL O & D and not a hub.
n77j
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters. Its a Hub, were people COnnect. You start taking out options for people to connect and you have 4 hour layovers, or less connections all together, then people drive or chose another airport or air carrier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! It has worked for years and i don't see any airline in the near future revoking that concept. When a route is not generating enough revenue, it is either downgraded to an RJ or eliminated altogether. However, no airline will ride a route 6 or 7 times a day if it is losing money-especially these days. I have seen it when i was in the airlines-a route would not stay that long if it is not making money. ORD is such a sweet airport for connections to the rest of the nation and even worldwide that i don't see either UA or AA bailing out there at all-best option is to add more runways-at least in the mean time. BTW-I am surprised ATL wasn't number #1.
[ QUOTE ]
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters. Its a Hub, were people COnnect. You start taking out options for people to connect and you have 4 hour layovers, or less connections all together, then people drive or chose another airport or air carrier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! It has worked for years and i don't see any airline in the near future revoking that concept. When a route is not generating enough revenue, it is either downgraded to an RJ or eliminated altogether. However, no airline will ride a route 6 or 7 times a day if it is losing money-especially these days. I have seen it when i was in the airlines-a route would not stay that long if it is not making money. ORD is such a sweet airport for connections to the rest of the nation and even worldwide that i don't see either UA or AA bailing out there at all-best option is to add more runways-at least in the mean time. BTW-I am surprised ATL wasn't number #1.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
You say UAL has no competition from ORD to DEN. That is simply not true. I can buy seats on CAL, DAL, AMR, NWA, Frontier, USAir (and I'm sure I've missed some) from ORD to DEN.
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't read my post. I didn't say there was NO competition on the routes. I was comparing AA and UAL on routes to their respective hubs. AA flies masses of aircraft to DFW and UAL flies masses of aircraft to DEN. My point was, if you combined a few AA flights going to DFW and a few UAL flights going to DEN, congestion could lighten up a little. UAL is not going to suddenly attack DFW and AA isn't going to ramp up flights to UAL's hub.
[ QUOTE ]
You say UAL has no competition from ORD to DEN. That is simply not true. I can buy seats on CAL, DAL, AMR, NWA, Frontier, USAir (and I'm sure I've missed some) from ORD to DEN.
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't read my post. I didn't say there was NO competition on the routes. I was comparing AA and UAL on routes to their respective hubs. AA flies masses of aircraft to DFW and UAL flies masses of aircraft to DEN. My point was, if you combined a few AA flights going to DFW and a few UAL flights going to DEN, congestion could lighten up a little. UAL is not going to suddenly attack DFW and AA isn't going to ramp up flights to UAL's hub.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
RJs range from around .77-.82 in cruise. If someone is going .84 and someone else is doing .81 even though its faster its not like they if they are allowed to "pass" theyll go wizzin by.
[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't comparing cruise speeds, difinitely no contest there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif. I meant in the climb. Not just the X specifically by most modern airliners (737NG) and corp jets. Not many of them are still climbing at 3000 fpm or better in the 30s or higher. In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[ QUOTE ]
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't explain why 2 737s leave within 5 minutes of each other going to the same cities, instead of 1 larger airplane.
[ QUOTE ]
RJs range from around .77-.82 in cruise. If someone is going .84 and someone else is doing .81 even though its faster its not like they if they are allowed to "pass" theyll go wizzin by.
[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't comparing cruise speeds, difinitely no contest there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif. I meant in the climb. Not just the X specifically by most modern airliners (737NG) and corp jets. Not many of them are still climbing at 3000 fpm or better in the 30s or higher. In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[ QUOTE ]
You cant just say well there is 6 flights a day with 100 seaters so lets make 2 on 300 seaters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't explain why 2 737s leave within 5 minutes of each other going to the same cities, instead of 1 larger airplane.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[/b]
[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't comparing cruise speeds, difinitely no contest there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif. I meant in the climb. Not just the X specifically by most modern airliners (737NG) and corp jets. Not many of them are still climbing at 3000 fpm or better in the 30s or higher. In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[/ QUOTE ]
So whats the solution? GIve everyone in the way a vector of course while corp jets stay on course and climb to 410?
Just out of curiosity what you you consider a resonable climb rate/speed for an RJ or "Old" airliner?
[/b]
[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't comparing cruise speeds, difinitely no contest there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif. I meant in the climb. Not just the X specifically by most modern airliners (737NG) and corp jets. Not many of them are still climbing at 3000 fpm or better in the 30s or higher. In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[/ QUOTE ]
So whats the solution? GIve everyone in the way a vector of course while corp jets stay on course and climb to 410?
Just out of curiosity what you you consider a resonable climb rate/speed for an RJ or "Old" airliner?
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
....In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeehaa!
[ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't explain why 2 737s leave within 5 minutes of each other going to the same cities, instead of 1 larger airplane.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe they don't have a larger airplane available?
[ QUOTE ]
....In the X, our climb profile is 300KIAS to .80/.82 M. We are climbing at better than RJ/Airliner CRUISE speeds. And still doing 2000-3000fpm above FL350. An RJ might be climbing at 300KIAS, but he isn't climbing 1000+ near the 30s. Nor can it be at FL410 in less than :20.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeehaa!
[ QUOTE ]
That still doesn't explain why 2 737s leave within 5 minutes of each other going to the same cities, instead of 1 larger airplane.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe they don't have a larger airplane available?
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly! It has worked for years and i don't see any airline in the near future revoking that concept. When a route is not generating enough revenue, it is either downgraded to an RJ or eliminated altogether. ORD is such a sweet airport for connections to the rest of the nation and even worldwide that i don't see either UA or AA bailing out there at all-best option is to add more runways-at least in the mean time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Worked for years? And which major is making money right now? They have been using this system for years and it is still costing them money. The response has been to ask pilots/employees to take concessions, instead of facing the real problem. Another problem is the number of different aircraft types used. Some carriers are using 9 different aircraft types, all of which require different maint, pilot, support and training structures. Strangely enough, the two carriers making money now operate 1 aircraft type each (SWA/Jetblue). hmmmmm.
Whooooa?!?!?!I never said they should pull out of ORD.
More runways is NOT the answer. After a certain point, it doesn't matter if you have 50 parallel runways. You can still only get so many airplanes in their airspace at a time. And you can only get them to follow each other X miles apart.
Take a look at NY Center. Airplanes/airlines share 3 major airports. Through in a little thunderstorm at the whole place shuts down. Instant 180 min departure delays. LGA is a prime example of too many airliners scheduled in/out per day. A string of delays there, has effects all across the country. The ONLY way to ease congestion is to reduce the number of aircraft. The ONLY way to reduce aircraft numbers without decreasing pax capacity is with higher capacity aircraft. (Look at China, where 747s are commuters). Look at every major city and mass transit. They all try to promote mass transit systems to get the number of personal vehicles reduced on the overcrowded roads.
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly! It has worked for years and i don't see any airline in the near future revoking that concept. When a route is not generating enough revenue, it is either downgraded to an RJ or eliminated altogether. ORD is such a sweet airport for connections to the rest of the nation and even worldwide that i don't see either UA or AA bailing out there at all-best option is to add more runways-at least in the mean time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Worked for years? And which major is making money right now? They have been using this system for years and it is still costing them money. The response has been to ask pilots/employees to take concessions, instead of facing the real problem. Another problem is the number of different aircraft types used. Some carriers are using 9 different aircraft types, all of which require different maint, pilot, support and training structures. Strangely enough, the two carriers making money now operate 1 aircraft type each (SWA/Jetblue). hmmmmm.
Whooooa?!?!?!I never said they should pull out of ORD.
More runways is NOT the answer. After a certain point, it doesn't matter if you have 50 parallel runways. You can still only get so many airplanes in their airspace at a time. And you can only get them to follow each other X miles apart.
Take a look at NY Center. Airplanes/airlines share 3 major airports. Through in a little thunderstorm at the whole place shuts down. Instant 180 min departure delays. LGA is a prime example of too many airliners scheduled in/out per day. A string of delays there, has effects all across the country. The ONLY way to ease congestion is to reduce the number of aircraft. The ONLY way to reduce aircraft numbers without decreasing pax capacity is with higher capacity aircraft. (Look at China, where 747s are commuters). Look at every major city and mass transit. They all try to promote mass transit systems to get the number of personal vehicles reduced on the overcrowded roads.