NYTimes.com Article: Downturn in Air Travel Unclogs La Guardia's Runways

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by psa188@juno.com.



Downturn in Air Travel Unclogs La Guardia's Runways

January 25, 2003
By MATTHEW L. WALD






Two years ago, takeoffs and landings at La Guardia Airport
were so badly backed up that the federal government said
the delays there caused a quarter of all the nation's air
traffic delays, and it stepped in to ration the right to
land there. Now, airline traffic has fallen off so sharply
that the airport is operating far below capacity, and on
some days there are no delays at all.

The development is a complete reversal of fortune for La
Guardia, where at one point nearly one in three planes was
delayed by at least 15 minutes, and many of those were
delayed for more than an hour. Although the development is
good news for frustrated passengers, it is not necessarily
the case for the airlines.

Much of the reason for the ease in what seemed like a
perpetual bottleneck at La Guardia is the sharp drop in the
number of airline passengers. With fewer people flying, the
airlines are cutting back on flights or abandoning routes
entirely, and now the Federal Aviation Administration has a
surplus of landing slots that it has trouble giving away.

On Wednesday, arrivals and departures were running
flawlessly, one every 90 seconds or so. With gusts getting
stronger, pilots arriving on Runway 22 complained that the
crosswind was too strong. So James G. Courtney, the traffic
management coordinator in the tower, decided to switch
arrivals to Runway 31 so the planes would be more nearly
facing into the wind.

In the old days, that would have meant chaos because each
of the dozens of planes waiting to take off on Runway 31
would have to taxi to Runway 4. But this day, there was
only one regional jet waiting for takeoff clearance.

"You don't have to be an aviation expert to see we're not
at capacity," said Mr. Courtney, a controller here for six
years. As he spoke, gates stood empty. One plane taxied
down to the takeoff runway, and then its pilot asked for a
delay; with no other traffic to wait for, the crew had not
had time to finish the preflight paperwork, controllers
said.

The scene was a far cry from 2000, when Congress lifted the
restrictions on flights into La Guardia for start-up
airlines and airlines serving new markets, and the airlines
added a swarm of planes. The airport, which had been
limited to 1,088 landings and takeoffs a day, became a
free-for-all, with about 1,400.

"It was a madhouse," said Tanya Hyman, a controller here
for 11 years. "We'd see airplanes parked at every piece of
concrete. It was like a puzzle, so many planes and no place
to put them." Eventually, the airlines backed off because
sending a plane to La Guardia meant committing it to
extensive delays during which it did not earn revenue.

In response, the F.A.A. cut the number of slots to 1,247, a
compromise meant to get maximum value from scarce real
estate without inviting a flood of planes that made the
airport unreliable.

But now the number of daily takeoffs and landings at La
Guardia, which is in Queens, has fallen to around 1,100,
according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
which operates La Guardia, Kennedy and Newark airports.
Slots are available for every hour of the day except 4 p.m.
to 5 p.m. Passenger traffic is down even more sharply than
the number of planes, with some airlines substituting
50-seat regional jets for full-size planes.

By the Port Authority's count, planes landing at La Guardia
two years ago had an average of 110 seats, but today the
number is 97. That could fall still further, with US
Airways having declared that it will try to find its way
out of bankruptcy by flying smaller planes.

This month, the F.A.A. began shopping among the airlines,
trying to give away slots that had fallen into disuse.

It is a tough decision for airlines. "When everything was
roaring, before Sept. 11, we were doing everything we could
to get the slot rule undone, so everybody could have free
access," said Carol Skornicka, a spokeswoman for Midwest
Express Airlines. But with the falloff in business, which
she said began even before the terrorist attacks in 2001,
Midwest Express cut its daily round trips to New York to
seven, from eight.

La Guardia's fortunes will turn around, the Port Authority
insists. "I can fundamentally predict and guarantee traffic
is going to return," said William DeCota, the authority's
director of aviation. Traffic used to be 25 million
passengers a year, but that fell to 22 million last year.
He predicted that it would eventually reach 30 million.

In fact, Mr. DeCota would like some long-term limit on
traffic. The F.A.A. was working on such a system before the
terrorist attacks; now it has put off the problem by
extending the restrictions on the number of slots until
2007.

If the F.A.A. does not make the restrictions permanent,
Port Authority officials say, they will consider "gate
performance standards," which would provide gates only to
airlines that brought in large planes. The F.A.A. controls
the runways, but the Port Authority controls the gates.

Some airlines, like AirTran Airways and Spirit, say they
would like to add service but complain that there are other
bottlenecks, like gate space. "That can be, for us, a
bigger issue," said Kevin P. Healy, vice president for
planning at AirTran. The airline operates nine flights a
day from a single gate at La Guardia and would like a
second gate, but it is having a hard time securing a
long-term contract for one, he said. Small airlines like
his accuse bigger airlines of warehousing gates, to avoid
giving them to competitors. That, too, he said, can
increase delays, because sometimes when a plane is late, it
will occupy a gate designated for another plane, which will
have to wait on the ramp or on a taxiway.

Although some huge carriers are losing millions of dollars
a day or are in bankruptcy, few are willing to give up the
gates, even if they could save on rent. An airline that
cancels a daily round trip to, say, Little Rock can easily
reinstate it later. But not at La Guardia, and that is an
incentive to stay put.

"You may want it a year from now," explained George W.
Hamlin, senior vice president of Global Aviation
Associates, a consulting company in Washington. "Once you
have it, there's virtually no incentive to let it go."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/nyregion/25LAGU.html?ex=1044502363&ei=1&en=4eabd37b64224c8b



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]