PANYNJ considering lifting the LGA perimeter rule
Feb 26, 2015, 11:43 am
#31
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,093
While I like the idea of removing the perimeter rule, it would be interesting to see what happens in practice. I've seen a lot of people on, for example, SFO-JFK flights connecting onward to Europe, so simply stopping SFO service at JFK and moving it all to LGA wouldn't work. Most likely Delta will end up with even more duplicated services between the two airports than they have now, which isn't all that efficient.
It may also be hard to fill up the big 757s from SFO and LAX without the international connections that JFK offers (and there aren't many domestic destinations coming from SFO and LAX where LGA is a good connecting point).
UA would make out well since their connections all happen at the SFO and LAX end, so as long as they could gather enough slots, they could close the JFK station and focus all efforts on LGA (and EWR of course).
It may also be hard to fill up the big 757s from SFO and LAX without the international connections that JFK offers (and there aren't many domestic destinations coming from SFO and LAX where LGA is a good connecting point).
UA would make out well since their connections all happen at the SFO and LAX end, so as long as they could gather enough slots, they could close the JFK station and focus all efforts on LGA (and EWR of course).
Feb 26, 2015, 11:49 am
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,826
The best thing that can be done to upgrade the ATC system in NYC is to close LGA and expand JFK...Seriously.
Thankfully in this country, you can't take something someone has already purchased and then expect them to purchase it again at a higher price. Well, I suppose you could try it, but the lawsuits would fly and the airlines have a very good case.
Now, if you had said that they should be required to sell some of their slots to other airlines (at market value) I would have agreed.
DL wasn't there "first". They've negotiated to be in the position they are today. At least two other airlines have had larger dominant positions there in the past.
Thankfully in this country, you can't take something someone has already purchased and then expect them to purchase it again at a higher price. Well, I suppose you could try it, but the lawsuits would fly and the airlines have a very good case.
Now, if you had said that they should be required to sell some of their slots to other airlines (at market value) I would have agreed.
DL wasn't there "first". They've negotiated to be in the position they are today. At least two other airlines have had larger dominant positions there in the past.
Feb 26, 2015, 11:53 am
#33
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,826
While I like the idea of removing the perimeter rule, it would be interesting to see what happens in practice. I've seen a lot of people on, for example, SFO-JFK flights connecting onward to Europe, so simply stopping SFO service at JFK and moving it all to LGA wouldn't work. Most likely Delta will end up with even more duplicated services between the two airports than they have now, which isn't all that efficient.
It may also be hard to fill up the big 757s from SFO and LAX without the international connections that JFK offers (and there aren't many domestic destinations coming from SFO and LAX where LGA is a good connecting point).
UA would make out well since their connections all happen at the SFO and LAX end, so as long as they could gather enough slots, they could close the JFK station and focus all efforts on LGA (and EWR of course).
It may also be hard to fill up the big 757s from SFO and LAX without the international connections that JFK offers (and there aren't many domestic destinations coming from SFO and LAX where LGA is a good connecting point).
UA would make out well since their connections all happen at the SFO and LAX end, so as long as they could gather enough slots, they could close the JFK station and focus all efforts on LGA (and EWR of course).
Feb 26, 2015, 12:01 pm
#34
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,093
In this scenario, what would happen with international connecting passengers using UA's *A partners such as LH/LX, SQ, etc. that still use JFK rather than EWR? Also, many high yield passengers prefer JFK over EWR, although there would also be some residents of norther NJ who prefer EWR.
But, generally speaking, any Star carrier that wants significant access to United's network is doing it through EWR or other hubs rather than through the 3 destinations UA serves from JFK. (Both LH and LX serve EWR, and SQ has no need for people to connect from JFK to LAX or SFO since their LAX and SFO customers would just take SQ direct to those destinations. Smaller Star carriers like SA or TK might connect some people onto UA at JFK but more likely focus on connecting points like IAD and ORD since again, UA doesn't offer much by way of connectivity out of JFK.)
And I agree some people have strong EWR/JFK preferences, which is why UA currently serves LAX and SFO from both airports. But if UA was able to move their p.s. LAX and SFO flights to LGA, they would have no more need for JFK since all of their transcon customers who prefer JFK over EWR presumably are equally as happy, or happier, to use LGA.
Feb 26, 2015, 12:04 pm
#35
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,289
A problem with that line of thinking is that there was no 'original' purchase of slots. They were free to a carrier which may have sold them to a carrier... (rinse, repeat) who sold them to Delta. It's not hard to make a case that slots at an airport built & maintained with public money should be a public good.
Feb 26, 2015, 12:13 pm
#36
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,289
The other option, is that the original airline could lease them out...
I know back in the days when I worked for JI, we had 6 slot pairs of our own and we leased 3 pairs from NW that they weren't utilizing at the time.
Feb 26, 2015, 12:18 pm
#37
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,826
True, but there at least should be a chance to sell before simply revoking them. It's similar to how municipalities acquire land to build/expand a road. They make offers, peeps either accept them or they make a counter offer. After some time, holdouts are handled by eminent domain.
I would imagine there are at least a few carriers that would be interested in starting/adding services to/from LGA (especially if the perimeter rule is nixed).
The other option, is that the original airline could lease them out...
I know back in the days when I worked for JI, we had 6 slot pairs of our own and we leased 3 pairs from NW that they weren't utilizing at the time.
I would imagine there are at least a few carriers that would be interested in starting/adding services to/from LGA (especially if the perimeter rule is nixed).
The other option, is that the original airline could lease them out...
I know back in the days when I worked for JI, we had 6 slot pairs of our own and we leased 3 pairs from NW that they weren't utilizing at the time.
Feb 26, 2015, 12:30 pm
#38
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: halfway between JFK and LGA
Posts: 976
Obviously, this would be huge for DL. In terms of impact, I'd have to think that the bulk of the SFO/LAX/SEA flights would move to LGA, likely at the expense of some of the smaller destinations, or maybe some of the LGA-Other Hub frequency. The open question would be whether that loss would be offset via either increased gauge into LGA (in the case of drawdown of LGA-Other Hub frequency) or transfer to JFK (in the case of elimination/cutback on smaller destinations. For example, DL has something like 9 flights a day to RDU and 7 a day to MSP. I'd think they could steal a slot or two from each and backfill either with bigger planes or shifting some to JFK.
I will repeat myself a bit though... If this goes through, I think they should seize all the slots and re-auction them, with the funds going to help upgrade air traffic infrastructure in the region. While they are at it, do the same for JFK and EWR. I don't think DL should be handed a gift of a dominant position at an increasingly attractive LGA simply because they were there "first".
I will repeat myself a bit though... If this goes through, I think they should seize all the slots and re-auction them, with the funds going to help upgrade air traffic infrastructure in the region. While they are at it, do the same for JFK and EWR. I don't think DL should be handed a gift of a dominant position at an increasingly attractive LGA simply because they were there "first".
Feb 26, 2015, 1:22 pm
#39
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,214
Feb 26, 2015, 2:13 pm
#40
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
Theoretically losing the LGA perimeter could open some more of the world to smaller cities.
Feel free poke holes in my logic but here's the set up.
There are ~5 weekday LAS/JFK flights on Delta. And ~5 weekday MKE/LGA flights.
If DL can run 3 JFK/LAS flights and 2 LGA/LAS flights, it could then potentially move 2 of the MKE/LGA flights to JFK offering more service to international locations.
Not saying that some cities won't lose service or frequencies, but it could allow a better mix up those who's final destination is NYC and can go into LGA and those continuing onward to TATL destinations to JFK.
Feel free poke holes in my logic but here's the set up.
There are ~5 weekday LAS/JFK flights on Delta. And ~5 weekday MKE/LGA flights.
If DL can run 3 JFK/LAS flights and 2 LGA/LAS flights, it could then potentially move 2 of the MKE/LGA flights to JFK offering more service to international locations.
Not saying that some cities won't lose service or frequencies, but it could allow a better mix up those who's final destination is NYC and can go into LGA and those continuing onward to TATL destinations to JFK.
Feb 26, 2015, 4:19 pm
#41
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: DL, AA, US, SWA
Posts: 1,133
Just one of the reviews-
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/11...aby+Bus+to+JFK
Feb 26, 2015, 7:26 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA — the REAL Washington; occasionally (but a lot less often than before) in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K (closing in on 0.5MM)
Posts: 21,866
even though I have only transited the MAT in the past few years, I think another significant issue that doesn't get a lot of visibility is the LGA landside infrastructure ... especially if several of these these longer-range flights wind up operating within about the same 30- to 45-minute windows (~730am, ~noon, ~5pm)
Feb 26, 2015, 7:48 pm
#44
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KATL
Programs: DL DM/2MM
Posts: 2,059
Actually EWR is my preferred airport from Manhattan, esp. from the West Side, due to the easy connection from Penn Station.
Feb 26, 2015, 9:07 pm
#45
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: AMEX Platinum, Global Entry, Priority Pass, SPG Gold, HHonors Gold
Posts: 1,594