blue streak 1 wrote:The US DOT has announced a proposal to limit the number of flights per hour EWR(83),JFK( approx 65), and LGA (unknown). The result is that if these go into effect (subject to many lawsuits) will be a decrease in flights. Being in the airline business for so long present fuel prices will cause XXX airline to delete short haul - low altitude flights. For example a LGA - BOS A-300 flight used 20,000# - 22,000# (2985 gallons) of jet fuel whereas same aircraft NYC - Florida used 50,000# (7462 gal), I expect a quick exit from these short hauls if the DOT proposal goes in effect. I do not believe that AMTRAK is ready for the traffic influx.
For FY ended September 2007, the NEC had a passenger/seat mile load factor of approximately 48 per cent. Acela's load factor was 59 per cent. Undoubtedly, certain segments had a higher load factor than other segments. For example, the load factor from New York to Philadelphia, especially for the Acela, is higher than the load factor on other segments. Nevertheless, it would appear that the NEC could absorb additional passengers without a large increase in capacity. At the end of the day, of course, it depends on how many people abandon flying or give up driving.
Does high fuel cost mean the end of flying or a great reduction in flying? Not necessarily! The airlines could switch the type of airplane used on the traditional shuttle routes. In Australia, for example, Qantas uses high capacity 767s on the Sydney to Melbourne run, which is similar to the Boston to Washington run or somewhat longer than New York to Washington. The cost per seat mile for a high capacity 767 is considerably lower than the cost of lower capacity airplanes.
Speaking of the NEC, I am looking forward to a trip to Philadelphia in September. One of my objectives is to ride the Acela to Washington and then to New York on another occasion. I have not had an opportunity to ride the Acela.
Sam, you will enjoy "The Corridor".
Keep in mind, Amtrak may have room for increased loading, but one problem is between New York and Rhode Island, there are many Drawbridges. They have put limits on the number of trains that can be run during some hours do to River Trafic.
All Corridor trains are "Reserved Space", no seat is assigned, only enought tickets are sold equal to the number of seats. No "overbooking", no standing at that speed.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Samantha:
It is not easier to add a larger aircraft. All aircraft have a trailing separation that the following aircraft has to follow. For MD-80,B-737, a-319,320,321 and small aircraft it is 3 miles. Behind a B-757 it is four miles, Behind a B747,B-767,B777, A -330,A-340 it is five miles. The new A-380 has not beenfinalized but 7 miles appears likely. there are other nuances but that mainly covers the point. Plus B-747s and A-340s are not allowed in LGA airport. Therefore increasing the size of aircraft increases seats but reduces the number of aircraft that can takeoff or land in any . The proposed constraints will limit the total number of passengers handled by each airport believe me. Also I made a mistake on my original post of fuel used from NYC to Florida it is only 35.000# and I have corrected the original post. BTW 3 miles equals about 30 - 70 seconds.
blue streak 1 wrote: Samantha:It is not easier to add a larger aircraft. All aircraft have a trailing separation that the following aircraft has to follow. For MD-80,B-737, a-319,320,321 and small aircraft it is 3 miles. Behind a B-757 it is four miles, Behind a B747,B-767,B777, A -330,A-340 it is five miles. The new A-380 has not beenfinalized but 7 miles appears likely. there are other nuances but that mainly covers the point. Plus B-747s and A-340s are not allowed in LGA airport. Therefore increasing the size of aircraft increases seats but reduces the number of aircraft that can takeoff or land in any . The proposed constraints will limit the total number of passengers handled by each airport believe me. Also I made a mistake on my original post of fuel used from NYC to Florida it is only 35.000# and I have corrected the original post. BTW 3 miles equals about 30 - 70 seconds.
I was a pilot for many years. I worked at it full time for approximately two years; otherwise, it was a part time avocation. I racked up more than 2,500 hours in a variety of airplanes. I was a CFI and CFII with multi-engine ratings. I also held corresponding ground instructor ratings.
I flew out of Hartford, Connecticut. One of my runs was to LaGuardia, although most of my flights into the New York TCA were to Tetterboro. At the time, which goes back a few years, the Carmel VOR was a key navigation aid into the New York area from New England. I am aware of the separation rules.
Using larger airplanes, e.g. B-767 in place of B-737 or MD-80, etc., would result in fewer airplanes. It would mean fewer departures carrying the same number or more passengers than are carried with the current equipment, which consists of regional jets, A-319s, B-737s, etc. Accordingly, air traffic would be reduced. It would not be increased. And separation would be less of a problem.
The probability that the airlines would use anything larger than a 767 for shuttle work in the NEC is pretty remote. I drew reference to the 767 because Qantas uses it between Melbourne and Sydney, which has some of the charasteristics of the NEC, without any traffic congestion problems.
In spite of their current woes, the airlines are not going to dry up and go away. Service will be cut back in many markets, i.e. those that cannot support larger airplanes, or eliminated in some markets, e.g. Lancaster, PA, Longview, TX, etc., but people are going to continue flying long distances.
Trains may be a viable solution for relatively high density corridors, but they cannot compete with the airplane for long distances. And outside of the high density corridors they cannot compete with the automobile.
Some people seem to think that $4 or $5 gasoline will drive people out of their cars and onto trains. It could in some parts of the country. But don't count on it. The folks who live across the street from me have shown me the future. They just bought a SMART Car. It gets more than 38 miles per gallon around town and about 45 miles per gallon on the highway. This is a glimpse the future, at least in most areas of Texas, which is where I live. Texans might bail out of their SUVs and pick-ups. And they will get smarter about driving. But they will not give up their cars for trains.
I'll be on the trains when they make sense. Because I am a train buff! But most of my friends and neighborhoods will not, at least in my lifetime.
Samantha wrote:Does high fuel cost mean the end of flying or a great reduction in flying? Not necessarily! The airlines could switch the type of airplane used on the traditional shuttle routes. In Australia, for example, Qantas uses high capacity 767s on the Sydney to Melbourne run, which is similar to the Boston to Washington run or somewhat longer than New York to Washington. The cost per seat mile for a high capacity 767 is considerably lower than the cost of lower capacity airplanes.
Only problem with the 767 on a short distance flight is that it would take almost as long to laod it as it would to make the flight. There's a reason that Southwest uses 737's...
Back in the early 70's, Air Cal could fly from Oakland to San Diego in 2 hours, including stops at San Jose and Orange County using 737's with built-in stairways.
Since you are a pilot you should know the problems with the NYC TCA and Tracon. especially in weather and the weekend flyers in NJ on weekends. These proposed NYC limitations will probably dry up the short haul market. (however I wonder if they will ever go into effect knowing how slow the DOT operates.(this is a US DOT proposal). My airline will go for the routes that can get the most bang for the fuel buck. Low altitude jet operations are fuel guzzlers (turbo props to a lesser extent and maybe some regionals may have to go back to them even though there is much passenger resistance).
The proposed restrictions are not total aircraft I believe but the equivalent aircraft and my post I did not list the 2 minute separation behind a heavy jet. (B-757 and higher). Yes air traffic would be reduced. A-319s, B-737-700,800,900s are not regional jets. They are 4+ hour range jets. Regional jets are CRJs , Bombardier, etc. (barbie jets).
Absolutely people are going to continue to fly; however we expect the short haul trips to be severly reduced. Aviation week published figures for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 where some regional carrier's fuel costs were as high as 44% of total operating costs and also the prediction that MESA ( your neck of the woods) might go into CHAP 11 by the end of this calendar year. Who knows what regional fuel costs are now. Anyway its more driving for all of us.
This points to the many people in the northeast who don't own cars and must take public transportation. If our airlines cut back on the short hauls some people will want to take the train. I read a blurb that AMTRAK is going to try more capacity control by varying car count and will get away from the fixed consists that have been on the regional trains. Do you know any specifics? Of course AMTRAK'S cost structure will cause them to loose money on every full car added which may cause them to loose more money!
Of course AMTRAK'S cost structure will cause them to (lose) money on every full car added which may cause them to loose more money!
Are you counting yourself in the passenger-train advocate or critic column?
Airlines are going to cut back, sending even more passengers over the Amtrak NEC with the hefty fares the market seems to bear in those parts, and this will cause Amtrak to lose more money, resulting in a dire need for the Federal Government to increase the Amtrak subsidy.
Is the argument something like, capacity on roads and air lanes is so badly constrained, and large aircraft are not a solution, unlike Japan, land of the Bullet Train, where they have so much travel demand over the same Tokyo-Osaka route that they fly shuttle service with 747s? That the government will be required to pump money into the rail mode, which cannot even break even when running at capacity with a captive market owing to the saturation of the alternative modes?
Does anyone have anything positive to say about passenger trains?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul:
I am a very vocal advocate for a balanced transportation system. (one system). I have participated in almost all systems that we have in this country. However I have heard too many arguments against rail and I want all of us here to think!!!. If we don't our critics will bury our arguments. (NARP doesn't do enough thinking and I am a member.) There are economies of scale and our rail passenger network does not have it. My airline and trucking experiences show that scale has worked in the past but the fuel price increases has turned that scale on its head. History has shown that this country has never enforced a co-ordinated transportation policy. It is everyone for himself!!
EX: The post roads, Canals, The National highway, sea and river ports, Railroads, Airlines, and of course the Automobile (only one that connects to some others). The point is there has never been good transportation interfaces until very recently (Atlanta- 10%+ of all MARTA rail boardings occur at the Atlanta airport station).
Whatever is needed to get the direct operating cost revenue positive is needed as I see it. That means much capital investment which is not being done. I believe that the proposed tax credit for rail improvements would allow the freight RRs to have a much lower operating ratio and benefit passenger as well.
blue streak 1 wrote: Samantha:Since you are a pilot you should know the problems with the NYC TCA and Tracon. especially in weather and the weekend flyers in NJ on weekends. These proposed NYC limitations will probably dry up the short haul market. (however I wonder if they will ever go into effect knowing how slow the DOT operates.(this is a US DOT proposal). My airline will go for the routes that can get the most bang for the fuel buck. Low altitude jet operations are fuel guzzlers (turbo props to a lesser extent and maybe some regionals may have to go back to them even though there is much passenger resistance). The proposed restrictions are not total aircraft I believe but the equivalent aircraft and my post I did not list the 2 minute separation behind a heavy jet. (B-757 and higher). Yes air traffic would be reduced. A-319s, B-737-700,800,900s are not regional jets. They are 4+ hour range jets. Regional jets are CRJs , Bombardier, etc. (barbie jets). Absolutely people are going to continue to fly; however we expect the short haul trips to be severly reduced. Aviation week published figures for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 where some regional carrier's fuel costs were as high as 44% of total operating costs and also the prediction that MESA ( your neck of the woods) might go into CHAP 11 by the end of this calendar year. Who knows what regional fuel costs are now. Anyway its more driving for all of us.This points to the many people in the northeast who don't own cars and must take public transportation. If our airlines cut back on the short hauls some people will want to take the train. I read a blurb that AMTRAK is going to try more capacity control by varying car count and will get away from the fixed consists that have been on the regional trains. Do you know any specifics? Of course AMTRAK'S cost structure will cause them to loose money on every full car added which may cause them to loose more money!
Low altitudes are murder on jet fuel consumption. I don't know how high the New York to Washington shuttle flights normally operate, but between Dallas and Houston they get up to flight level 27 and 28, which is not as bad on fuel consumption as flight level 22. But it really does not matter if the operator can charge enough to turn a profit. Larger airplanes, reduced capacity, etc. could help make it a reality. As per the recent announcements by United and Continental, it looks like capacity will shrink. This is an important step in returning the airlines to profitability.
I understand that the restrictions to be imposed on the New York airports relate to the number of arrivals and departures. The size of the airplane would only be a factor to the extent that the separation, once airborne, for aircraft following heavy airplanes is greater than for smaller airplanes. On take-off in a smaller airplane, the trick is to get off the ground before the heavy did; on landing the name of the game is to land beyond the point that the heavy touched down.
Of course Boeing 737s, Airbus A-319s, etc. are not regional jets. I did not mean to imply that they are the same. I meant to say that these are the airplanes used for the short flights in the NEC.
In 1996, on a flight to Melbourne, Australia, via Auckland, NZ, I had an opportunity to ride on the flight deck of a Qantas 747-400 from Auckland to Melbourne. I was amazed at that big bird's nimbleness. It is ungainly on the ground, but once it is airborne, it is a piece of cake to fly.
I looked on Travelocity for flights from Washington to Boston for August 15th. I found 41 non-stop flights. A significant percentage of them are operated with regional jets. I would not be surprise to see many of these airplanes disappear from the schedule in the fall.
I have heard that Amtrak is planning to vary the number of cars on its NEC trains depending on anticipated load factors. Doing so makes sense if the cost of adding and deleting of cars does not offset the cost savings. Also, whether is makes sense to add a car to a train depends on the revenue/cost structure. As a rule, if additional capacity generates enough revenue to cover the variable costs and contribute something to the fixed costs, it is a wise move to increase capacity. The key number is the amount of incremental revenue would be realized by adding another car.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Of course AMTRAK'S cost structure will cause them to (lose) money on every full car added which may cause them to loose more money! Are you counting yourself in the passenger-train advocate or critic column?Airlines are going to cut back, sending even more passengers over the Amtrak NEC with the hefty fares the market seems to bear in those parts, and this will cause Amtrak to lose more money, resulting in a dire need for the Federal Government to increase the Amtrak subsidy.Is the argument something like, capacity on roads and air lanes is so badly constrained, and large aircraft are not a solution, unlike Japan, land of the Bullet Train, where they have so much travel demand over the same Tokyo-Osaka route that they fly shuttle service with 747s? That the government will be required to pump money into the rail mode, which cannot even break even when running at capacity with a captive market owing to the saturation of the alternative modes?Does anyone have anything positive to say about passenger trains?
I can think of a number of good things to say about passenger trains:
I rode the Pacific Surfliner from LA to San Diego in March. The train was quick, comfortable, and on-time. I also rode the train from San Francisco to Sacramento during the same trip to California and found the experience to be equally good.
Those altitudes you quoted for your neck of the woods used to be in use NYC to Bos and DCA/BWI/IAD. Now it is 17,000 and 16,000 of course using the victor airways(slightly longer). This was done to prevent interfering with overflying aircraft. Turbo props get 15,000 and 16,000 so as not to be interferred with because of the airspeed differences. DCA-BOS is FL190 and Fl 200 however there are artificial hold downs on both departures and early descents. More fuel burn no matter what the size of aircraft. I don't believe Wash-BOS will be affected as much.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.