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 35,000# (5223 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.
I agre it is not ready, and there will finally be a push in congress for decent funding for investment when enough people find their mobility constrained.
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 ha
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.
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.
Th
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.
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!
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?
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.
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
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!
[/
I can think of a number of good things to say about passenger trains:
- The NEC covers its variable expenses as well as a significant portion of the fixed costs.
- The on-time arrival percentages for the NEC are well north of 85 per cent.
- The service is comfortable and quick.
- The train is the best commercial alternative from New York to Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore; it the best commercial alternative from New York to New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield; it is probably the best alternative from New York to Albany.
- Five of the short haul trains (Illini, Illinois Zephyr, Heartland Flyer, Pere Marquette, and Washington/Newport News) covered their variable operating expenses in 2007 and probably contributed something to interest and depreciation.
I rode the Pacific Surfliner from LA to San Diego in March. The train was q
Samantha:
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.