FAA "disses" O'Hare

Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ 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 ]

-If you are filling the seats and making money and is cost efficient-i don't see anything wrong with that.
-In most cases, one aircraft is continuing on to another destination. A little bit of SWA concept-Point to Point.
-Turn around time is much quicker on small B737 than one giant B777 or 767.
-Any avaition management book will tell you that Frequency is one importnat element in airline operations! if you plan to operate a route once a day with a big plane-you will not have your customers coming back to you.
-most of the 6-8 times and flights are mon-fri to accomandate the business travellers.
-Most all-airlines will immediately reduce,eliminate,downgrade a route-if there is no positive revenue generated.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

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 ]

-My main point is frequency-airlines not making money and different types of A/C is not solely their problem. It is string of reasons that will take another subject.
-As for china and the rest of the world-you have to meet the criteria and conditions to do what is working for them.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ 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 reasonable climb rate/speed for an RJ or "Old" airliner?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reasonable climb rate? At least 1500fpm to cruise alt.
I purposely added the NG airliners to my post for this exact point. The 737NGs can climb like a homesick angel too! So can the DO328Jet (down low). Actually, I ask for vectors to climb above or past other traffic. Unfortunately, they rarely accept our offer.
Here is an example of the current process.

ATC step climbs a fast airliner ahead of a slow aircraft. The slow aircraft now causes ATC to reduce the speed of the following aircraft, which dominos everyone behind them. Why can't the slow aircraft not immediately climb to a higher altitude. The leading aircraft will continue to outrun it. And the following aircraft will continue its climb/speed which closely matches the 1st aircraft? No roadblocks occur, and no-one has to alter their climb profiles.

To the post above that compared .78-.82 mach not being very different.....There is a great deal of difference in .90 and .78. Many times it required slowing more than 100kts. Compare it to doing 45mph in a construction zone, on a 70mph interstate. And doing so 100 miles before the construction begins. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
Turn around time is much quicker on small B737 than one giant B777 or 767.
Any aviation management book will tell you that Frequency is one important element in airline operations! if you plan to operate a route once a day with a big plane-you will not have your customers coming back to you.
-most of the 6-8 times and flights are mon-fri to accommodate the business travelers.
-Most all-airlines will immediately reduce,eliminate,downgrade a route-if there is no positive revenue generated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boy, This thread is getting long. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Remember, we're just thinking out loud, I'm not trying to rewrite history.

Turn around time is a function of scheduling. You also have to factor man hours. You can use 25 men on each 737 or 50 on one 767. And if you are only turning 1 airplane, you have more time to do it anyway.
Remember, the guys writing the books did so to make money.
I never said to use Jumbo jets to replace 737s, nor did I say to do it with only one flight per day. Use a 737 instead of 2 RJs, use a 757 instead of 2 737-200s. I never meant to upset the balance of managerial wisdom. However, if you had 8 flights/day, merging the 2 morning/evening flights is not going to doom the airline. I fly over 60 airline flights per year. I could care less if the thing leaves at 8am or 9am.

I challenge you to find a passenger that would not rather travel on a larger airplane. I once heard a woman who just boarded a 757 say, "oh my, this a small one!" (See guys, it's not just the commuters that hear that /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif ).

Airlines do NOT always remove unprofitable routes. I know this personally, not some book. I know several high capacity routes that are covered with several FULL flights per day that do NOT make money. How is this possible? They are popular vacation/business destinations with most of the travelers using free tickets and highly discounted fares.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
I once heard a woman who just boarded a 757 say, "oh my, this a small one!"

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm the guy with the weird Mother...I remember her seeing a DC-9 that I was boarding and she said, "Woo, now that's a big one"!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

I just mentioned my opinion based on the experience i had while i was in the airlines-i am sure vice versa-either way i don't want to piss-off my customer netjets- /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
[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 ]

Well, we must be living in alternate universes. In fact that is exactly what happens. Every time one airline leaves a hole in their system, somebody plugs it. Start dropping frequency on a market you dominate and your competitors will be on it the next month.

This will get largely solved after the shakeout. But for now it is the facts of the industry.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
Reasonable climb rate? At least 1500fpm to cruise alt.
I purposely added the NG airliners to my post for this exact point. The 737NGs can climb like a homesick angel too! So can the DO328Jet (down low). Actually, I ask for vectors to climb above or past other traffic. Unfortunately, they rarely accept our offer.
Here is an example of the current process.


[/ QUOTE ]

THe D328J can Climb fast, but doesnt cruise fast. .66 I believe. If you say 1500Fpm is reasonsable, what kinda speed would you say is reasonable with that 1500Fpm?

Flyover brings up an interesting point. These slots into airports like DCA and LGA are very valuable and if you dont use them you lose them, Maybe that system is flawed.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

I think the conflict here NJA Capt is you are trying to imagine a "solution" that tweaks the current one, with the same number of hub carriers and hubs remaining.

The problem is a system that was overbuilt during the extended business up cycle of the 80s and 90s. Too many hubs, too many airlines, chasing too few passengers, and chasing them with frequency of flights.

This is not something that can be tweaked. Airlines desperately compete for passengers. When one tries to cut (consolidate if you like) flights a competitor immediately adds them. Also most market pairs are served by multiple carriers through their hubs. So that DEN to DFW (for example) is served by 6 or more airlines, some non-stop, some connecting, but all offering fares and frequencies in that market.

The "solution" is the one that's coming. It's the market solution. The current system is collapsing under it's own weight. There will be massive failure, followed by consolidation. This will mean fewer carriers, fewer hubs, and a rational system. Airplanes will start trending towards larger again, instead of smaller. That's why the new e-jets are the hot thing of the future.

Given current conditions you will never convince any airline marketing department to volutarily scale back flights on their best routes. This is like conceding defeat. And while you can round up everybody and get them to say "sure I don't mind waitng an hour" or "I'd much prefer a bigger airplane" when you actually change the schedule you will lose bookings because some other airline popped up before your flight.

It will all get worked out in a couple of years.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is a system that was overbuilt during the extended business up cycle of the 80s and 90s. Too many hubs, too many airlines, chasing too few passengers, and chasing them with frequency of flights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

In the process, they lowered their sevice standards, amenities disappeared, and loyal customers quit being loyal.

(Sorry Doug)
I'm still sour about Delta restructuring their Skymiles program in 2003. They bumped me from Gold Medallion to entry level overnight. So I transferred my 500,000 Delta miles somewhere else. I know DAL couldn't care less.....hopefully I wasn't the only one who said enough is enough.

I rode First Class on USAir a few weeks ago and they only had 2 rows of seats in FC on a 757 (and still ran out of breakfasts). Only DC9s used to have 2 rows.

[ QUOTE ]
THe D328J can Climb fast, but doesnt cruise fast. .66 I believe. If you say 1500fpm is reasonsable, what kinda speed would you say is reasonable with that 1500Fpm?

[/ QUOTE ]That was 1500fpm at the top of the climb, whatever that may be. Speed wise? Maybe 250-300 kts?
The beauty would be the slow/fastclimbers would get to cruise sooner, allowing fast/slower climbers to climb below the slower aircraft. By the time the aircraft started reaching common altitudes, many courses would have diverged enough to negate spacing vectors. The remaining aircraft would have a lot more room for vectoring, as opposed to inside a Class B. Just a thought.

NY ARTCC drives people crazy trying to put ALL of their traffic over 1 intersection (Like WHITE). Why not put the in a parallel route for higher perf aircraft? Buses have the HOV lane, let the AIRbuses have their lane. I was in front of (3) 737s coming out of NY and they vectored us to let them go by...WTFO. There is no way they would have caught us, then some other ARTCC had to deal with us overrunning them.

My thoughts are that modern performance capability needs to be considered when routings are developed/used. Some of the current congestion would be eased if ground agencies would took advantage of the assets that they already have. If not, then we might as well have the FAA step in and only certify aircraft that have the exact same performance data. That way we could all fly nice straight, evenly spaced chains on their radar. NOOOOOOT!
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
NY ARTCC drives people crazy trying to put ALL of their traffic over 1 intersection (Like WHITE). Why not put the in a parallel route for higher perf aircraft? Buses have the HOV lane, let the AIRbuses have their lane. I was in front of (3) 737s coming out of NY and they vectored us to let them go by...WTFO. There is no way they would have caught us, then some other ARTCC had to deal with us overrunning them.

My thoughts are that modern performance capability needs to be considered when routings are developed/used. Some of the current congestion would be eased if ground agencies would took advantage of the assets that they already have. If not, then we might as well have the FAA step in and only certify aircraft that have the exact same performance data. That way we could all fly nice straight, evenly spaced chains on their radar. NOOOOOOT!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the NY ARTCC gets a bum rap though. Their problem is not enough airspace by a factor of at least 10. They already run parallel routes to get airplanes in and out of all the Northeast airports. Where are they going to put another one? Then everything gets dictated by arrival and departure points in and out of the busy terminal airspace. With every inch of airspace accounted for, how do you get creative?

The worm has definitely turned on performance though. It used to be that any commercial jet would blow the doors off all of the straight winged biz jets. Now it's the opposite. Maybe the guy who moved you behind the 737s didn't realize your performance. I remember getting vectored and spaced behind a King Air one time, between MEM and LIT. We finally convinced the controller we could blow his doors off, and he gave us a different altitude and let us pass him. It was just a brain f**t on his part.
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]
That was 1500fpm at the top of the climb, whatever that may be. Speed wise? Maybe 250-300 kts?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you still want 1500fpm even if it gives ya <220kts IAS?
 
Re: FAA \"disses\" O\'Hare

[ QUOTE ]

Do you still want 1500fpm even if it gives ya <220kts IAS?

[/ QUOTE ]Nah.....it just means you won't be getting those astronaut wings today. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/insane.gif

IAS isn't used much above FL350. Doug or one of the other guys can give climb profiles for the airliners, but I think it is in the range of 300/.78 ish. Not sure of their climb rate in the mid 30s at .78. Ours is 2000-3000fpm above FL350 at .80/.82
If we set the climb for 1300-1500fpm we'd be climbing at .87-.90 by the time we got to FL410. Straight wing Citations climb at 250/.62. But, like most other new biz jets, they are still topping 2200fpm at FL410. These are all based on cruise climb at gross wt, NOT max perf.

Any aircraft that is on the heavy side of its envelope, trying to fly near its certificated ceiling, like CRJs trying to creep up to FL410, should probably be flying a little lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top