FAA blames overcrowded skies on Airline schedules
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA blames overcrowded skies on Airline schedules
Morning Edition, August 9, 2007 · Crowded skies, known to pilots as mutual traffic, are a large part of air travel's woes. Mike Sammartino, director of system operations for the Federal Aviation Administration, attributes overcrowding to airlines' overloaded schedules. He speaks with Renee Montagne
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12623053
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12623053
Bit like the Commies blaming crop failures on the weather. When is the FAA going to introduce some new technology and better management to the problem. Any business swamped with customers would, drumroll, please, add production. The FAA, a playground for idiot congressmen, is forced to make do and blame the users.
Rant off.
Rant off.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the 1999 NBAA convention in Atlanta attending a seminar on RVSM and the Corporate Flight Department. The meeting started off with some high ranking FAA Assistant Administrator giving a speech on how great RVSM was going to be, how it would help prevent en-route delays and why the ATC system really, really needed RVSM.
He also presented a cute little dog and pony video show depicting how many more aircraft will be able to fit into the high altitude airspace structure. Then he concluded his little presentation by pounding his fist on the podium and all but yelling at all of us that RVSM was coming, we about a year to modify the aircraft and receive RVSM approval. Then the fool opened up the floor for questions, bad mistake.
Most of the questions were rather benign in nature and more along the lines of the technical aspects of RVSM implication on older aircraft. (The airlines were having the same thoughts and worries.) Then it was my turn.
First off I stated that we had lots of airspace, in fact the US had a whole pot full of airspace. But what we didn't have was concrete to park all of these extra aircraft on when we arrived at our destination. I went on and further stated that I have had to hold, slowed down and vectored urning clear weather arriving into ORD, DFW, ATL, MIA, LAX, TEB and EWR just to mention a few. As for departing it was not unusual to have one or two hour gate holds after the scheduled departure time, once I had a 4 hour delay and knew for a fact that some other corporate operators had actually canceled flights just because of ground delays.
What we, the aviation community at large, needed was more airports and more runways. What we needed like a hole in the head was for you guys, the FAA, cramming more aircraft into the airways system going to same major airports that are too limited as it is now.
Furthermore we don't need RVSM. Europe does, the North Atlantic NATS system does, but the US doesn't need RVSM for the reasons I had previously pointed out.
Well of course my suggestions fell on deaf ears, the FAA spokesman informed us that much wiser people that knew 'the big picture' had made this decision and by God we had better live with or get out of the airspace system.
So, here we are eight years later enjoying more ground holds, gate holds and en-route holds than any other time in the US aviation history.
And just how much money did it cost the aviation industry on the whole to modify all the aircraft for RVSM?
And don't even get me started on the problems on getting RVSM certified aircrews, operation's manuals and maintenance manuals approved by the local FAA office (FSDO).
A friend of mine has two identical aircraft, the only difference is the N number and the serial number. He submitted two identical RVSM operational and maintenance manuals for the two aircraft, the only difference being the N number and serial number. One was approved, the other was not approved by the FAA. 
(I love it when I can say, "I told you so!"
He also presented a cute little dog and pony video show depicting how many more aircraft will be able to fit into the high altitude airspace structure. Then he concluded his little presentation by pounding his fist on the podium and all but yelling at all of us that RVSM was coming, we about a year to modify the aircraft and receive RVSM approval. Then the fool opened up the floor for questions, bad mistake.
Most of the questions were rather benign in nature and more along the lines of the technical aspects of RVSM implication on older aircraft. (The airlines were having the same thoughts and worries.) Then it was my turn.
First off I stated that we had lots of airspace, in fact the US had a whole pot full of airspace. But what we didn't have was concrete to park all of these extra aircraft on when we arrived at our destination. I went on and further stated that I have had to hold, slowed down and vectored urning clear weather arriving into ORD, DFW, ATL, MIA, LAX, TEB and EWR just to mention a few. As for departing it was not unusual to have one or two hour gate holds after the scheduled departure time, once I had a 4 hour delay and knew for a fact that some other corporate operators had actually canceled flights just because of ground delays.
What we, the aviation community at large, needed was more airports and more runways. What we needed like a hole in the head was for you guys, the FAA, cramming more aircraft into the airways system going to same major airports that are too limited as it is now.
Furthermore we don't need RVSM. Europe does, the North Atlantic NATS system does, but the US doesn't need RVSM for the reasons I had previously pointed out.
Well of course my suggestions fell on deaf ears, the FAA spokesman informed us that much wiser people that knew 'the big picture' had made this decision and by God we had better live with or get out of the airspace system.
So, here we are eight years later enjoying more ground holds, gate holds and en-route holds than any other time in the US aviation history.
And just how much money did it cost the aviation industry on the whole to modify all the aircraft for RVSM?
And don't even get me started on the problems on getting RVSM certified aircrews, operation's manuals and maintenance manuals approved by the local FAA office (FSDO).
A friend of mine has two identical aircraft, the only difference is the N number and the serial number. He submitted two identical RVSM operational and maintenance manuals for the two aircraft, the only difference being the N number and serial number. One was approved, the other was not approved by the FAA. (I love it when I can say, "I told you so!"
Con-pilot: That is quite a description. Excellent.
Why did the FAA/DOT allow so many airlines to order so many jets which operate between any city-pair, mostly using higher altitudes than a Brasilia, SF-340 or B-1900 but only having 30-50 seats, in most cases?
One airline operates some CRJs with only 44 seats, in order to sneak through the scope clause. Think about the operating costs with about 12% fewer tickets which can be sold, for the same basic airframe! About 12% less revenue. And due to very lousy pay (a result of the sadly typical quality of their upper management), they have serious problems recruiting pilots who have any solid experience, and lose about 30 Captains per month. They can not operate their normal schedule.
But at least there are far fewer spinning propellers for harried, inexperienced ramp staff to walk into. Years ago two female ramp workers were killed by walking into propellers, in EWR and MEM.
Why did the FAA/DOT allow so many airlines to order so many jets which operate between any city-pair, mostly using higher altitudes than a Brasilia, SF-340 or B-1900 but only having 30-50 seats, in most cases?
One airline operates some CRJs with only 44 seats, in order to sneak through the scope clause. Think about the operating costs with about 12% fewer tickets which can be sold, for the same basic airframe! About 12% less revenue. And due to very lousy pay (a result of the sadly typical quality of their upper management), they have serious problems recruiting pilots who have any solid experience, and lose about 30 Captains per month. They can not operate their normal schedule.
But at least there are far fewer spinning propellers for harried, inexperienced ramp staff to walk into. Years ago two female ramp workers were killed by walking into propellers, in EWR and MEM.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 14th Aug 2007 at 04:56.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: KPIT
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i thought it would be easier for the airlines to add more focus cities/hub schedules...many of the airports that renovated/built during the 70/80/90s only see a small fraction/regional to these overcrowded cities...here are 2 examples that I can think of off the top of my head. I also think that the US/Eu agreement is helping this factor...for US Airlines to service EU, mainly flights are lead into connecting hubs of EU major airlines...and the same with EU carriers to the US...both cannot be blamed because airlines are trying to reach their travelers to the destinations easiest by going directly to their hub.
Ex- BAW services JFK, EWR, IAH, DFW without many other destinations while for example DAL is basically forced to Gatwick and Frankfurt...drawing airlines into these places
Pittsburgh International- USAIRs prime hub late 80s/early 90s with many overseas and domestic flights daily brought a complete new airport to the region...now there are hardly any direct flights besides to overcrowded hubs/focus cities.
American Airlines seems to be paving the way for fixing this problem---Lambert (KSTL) became a reliever for American's existing hubs at Chicago O'Hare and Dallas/Fort Worth. American transferred many mainline TWA routes to American Connection, a group of affiliated regional carriers.
Not sure here though to be honest
Ex- BAW services JFK, EWR, IAH, DFW without many other destinations while for example DAL is basically forced to Gatwick and Frankfurt...drawing airlines into these places
Pittsburgh International- USAIRs prime hub late 80s/early 90s with many overseas and domestic flights daily brought a complete new airport to the region...now there are hardly any direct flights besides to overcrowded hubs/focus cities.
American Airlines seems to be paving the way for fixing this problem---Lambert (KSTL) became a reliever for American's existing hubs at Chicago O'Hare and Dallas/Fort Worth. American transferred many mainline TWA routes to American Connection, a group of affiliated regional carriers.
Not sure here though to be honest
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes me laugh...
xxx
At ORD...
How in hell can they advertise 27 flights leaving/taking-off at... 08:00 local time...?
Many runways, yes, but I think departure control is a little busy to handle all these planes...
xxx
Airline schedules and timetables - excellent fiction to publish.
xxx
Reminds me of my days with PanAm...
JFK - going to LHR...
Actual push back at 19:16...
Scheduled departure was 19:00...
xxx
On the interphone (with the push-back crew)...
Captain, can we have an "on-time push back...?"
Ground, ok... we'll write it at 19:14
Thanks, captain, brakes set, hand signals on the left, have a good flight...!
Anything within 15 minutes of schedule was "on time" for statistics...
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
At ORD...
How in hell can they advertise 27 flights leaving/taking-off at... 08:00 local time...?
Many runways, yes, but I think departure control is a little busy to handle all these planes...
xxx
Airline schedules and timetables - excellent fiction to publish.
xxx
Reminds me of my days with PanAm...
JFK - going to LHR...
Actual push back at 19:16...
Scheduled departure was 19:00...
xxx
On the interphone (with the push-back crew)...
Captain, can we have an "on-time push back...?"
Ground, ok... we'll write it at 19:14
Thanks, captain, brakes set, hand signals on the left, have a good flight...!
Anything within 15 minutes of schedule was "on time" for statistics...
xxx
Happy contrails
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah.. ontime departures...
Airline I used to be with had a department of 3 people (incl 2 managers). Network Punctuality it was called. So the a/c is lets say 10 mins late. They'd religiously investigate & come up with 3 mins for loading, 2 mins cockpit procedures, say 3 mins on maintenance and ATC would get the rest. Important stuff...
Airline I used to be with had a department of 3 people (incl 2 managers). Network Punctuality it was called. So the a/c is lets say 10 mins late. They'd religiously investigate & come up with 3 mins for loading, 2 mins cockpit procedures, say 3 mins on maintenance and ATC would get the rest. Important stuff...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: >FL310
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody will admit it, but the airlines themselves are to blame. Notice that the major mess ups are at the major airports. The airlines bought into the RJs and simply put, they are clogging the skies in the big cities. Years ago, airlines would fly L1011s and DC10s into LGA with 300 plus pax onboard. How many RJs would it take to carry the pax of 3 widebodied jets (1000 pax)? Ah, but airlines say that the passenger wants direct flights to LGA from the smaller communities. True, but the airlines also gave the passenger the choice, fly on a RJ direct or go through the hub city. Each individual airline has the ability to control their flights through their respective hub cities, but when you have the likes of CAL, DAL, AA, UAL, etc all flying their RJs to these major cities instead of their hubs, it clogs up the system. How many times have you sat in line behind 10 RJs from one major airline system and wonder how many of those aircraft could be replaced with a couple of widebodies?
The airlines realized sort of the same thing back in the 70s with the fuel crisis. It was a lot easier and cheaper to run a couple of big aircraft instead of a whole network of narrow bodies.
The RJ concept was great initially. Put small aircraft into smaller communities that would or could not support mainline service on a regular basis. But when these aircraft started to replace mainline aircraft into major cities on direct routes, the ATC system couldn't and isn't able to handle it.
Take one more look at this. The legacy airlines that have had huge RJ fleets have all gone bankrupt or close to it. Those airlines that have had a mininmal or no RJ network have weathered the last 5 to 6 years fairly well. Cause and effect? Who can say?
The next time you are bored, try and find out how many seats on a daily basis your airline has flying to LGA from small communities direct, on the RJs. Then instead of flying direct, imagine they are flying their pax to your hub city (which can be controled to a certain extent by the major) and then put on a 767 to LGA. And then consider all of the legacies doing the same thing.
The airlines are themselves to blame. They have spoiled the passenger with crazy low fares and given the passenger expectations that he can fly from his small community direct to any major city.
Look, I have nothing against RJs and the people making a living from them. But utilize them in the orginal concept. Do you really believe that the FAA will be able update their system anytime soon to be able to handle the amount of aircraft in one area? And I don't care what kind of system is in place, if two out of four arrivals are shut down due to weather, you have to put 30 aircraft somewhere. Let's see 30 aircraft x 50 passenger seats equals 1500 pax. Or 1500 passenger seats divided by aircraft holding 220 equals 6 to 7 aircraft. Which scenerio would the ATC system be able to handle better?
Tell me where I'm wrong.........
The airlines realized sort of the same thing back in the 70s with the fuel crisis. It was a lot easier and cheaper to run a couple of big aircraft instead of a whole network of narrow bodies.
The RJ concept was great initially. Put small aircraft into smaller communities that would or could not support mainline service on a regular basis. But when these aircraft started to replace mainline aircraft into major cities on direct routes, the ATC system couldn't and isn't able to handle it.
Take one more look at this. The legacy airlines that have had huge RJ fleets have all gone bankrupt or close to it. Those airlines that have had a mininmal or no RJ network have weathered the last 5 to 6 years fairly well. Cause and effect? Who can say?
The next time you are bored, try and find out how many seats on a daily basis your airline has flying to LGA from small communities direct, on the RJs. Then instead of flying direct, imagine they are flying their pax to your hub city (which can be controled to a certain extent by the major) and then put on a 767 to LGA. And then consider all of the legacies doing the same thing.
The airlines are themselves to blame. They have spoiled the passenger with crazy low fares and given the passenger expectations that he can fly from his small community direct to any major city.
Look, I have nothing against RJs and the people making a living from them. But utilize them in the orginal concept. Do you really believe that the FAA will be able update their system anytime soon to be able to handle the amount of aircraft in one area? And I don't care what kind of system is in place, if two out of four arrivals are shut down due to weather, you have to put 30 aircraft somewhere. Let's see 30 aircraft x 50 passenger seats equals 1500 pax. Or 1500 passenger seats divided by aircraft holding 220 equals 6 to 7 aircraft. Which scenerio would the ATC system be able to handle better?
Tell me where I'm wrong.........
You're not wrong. However you look to the wrong entity for change. The FAA isn't there to determine if that arrival should have 44 seats or 440.
You might make a convincing argument they should, but they don't. The market demands high frequency to a variety of destinations that won't support a 767. Until that changes or local regulation changes it the FAA is along for the ride. That said, I don't know as I want the FAA telling the airlines what size or frequency of equipment (and thus destinations) they can fly. Doing so would effectively return us pre-1978.
You might make a convincing argument they should, but they don't. The market demands high frequency to a variety of destinations that won't support a 767. Until that changes or local regulation changes it the FAA is along for the ride. That said, I don't know as I want the FAA telling the airlines what size or frequency of equipment (and thus destinations) they can fly. Doing so would effectively return us pre-1978.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: >FL310
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WC,
You are right to a certain extent. The FAA should not dictate what the market should or shouldn't be. But the FAA will dictate what their system can handle. So what you might see is what SFO instituted about the size of aircraft going to certain airports.
The airlines will do NOTHING to ease the problem. They get bad press...who cares, it will be forgotten in about two months. With load factors in the 80% range, they certainly aren't losing any passengers due to miserable service.
But if the the airlines don't get their act together and show some constraint on traffic, what you will see is a tough passerger bill of rights from Congress. You think some sort of regulation from the FAA is bad.......Ask the British Airways captain why he flew (or tried to fly) a three working engine 747 from SFO to LHR (almost made it). Do you not think the EU passenger bill of rights might have had something to do with it? He admitted it did, I believe.
The airlines' choice, some sort of limitation/regulations regarding traffic or a passenger bill of rights.
As I said in the other post, the airlines have given exectations to passengers that they can fly coast to coast for $99 and get direct service from any community with a 5000ft rwy to any major city. Anything less and the passengers complain.
You are right to a certain extent. The FAA should not dictate what the market should or shouldn't be. But the FAA will dictate what their system can handle. So what you might see is what SFO instituted about the size of aircraft going to certain airports.
The airlines will do NOTHING to ease the problem. They get bad press...who cares, it will be forgotten in about two months. With load factors in the 80% range, they certainly aren't losing any passengers due to miserable service.
But if the the airlines don't get their act together and show some constraint on traffic, what you will see is a tough passerger bill of rights from Congress. You think some sort of regulation from the FAA is bad.......Ask the British Airways captain why he flew (or tried to fly) a three working engine 747 from SFO to LHR (almost made it). Do you not think the EU passenger bill of rights might have had something to do with it? He admitted it did, I believe.
The airlines' choice, some sort of limitation/regulations regarding traffic or a passenger bill of rights.
As I said in the other post, the airlines have given exectations to passengers that they can fly coast to coast for $99 and get direct service from any community with a 5000ft rwy to any major city. Anything less and the passengers complain.
I haven't heard what came of the SFO law suit. Last I heard UA legal took over for SkyWest in dealing with it.
You're right, a piece of concrete can only handle a finite number of ops and the FAA may eventually rule about that. Sooner than that, the laws of profit and loss will rule on it. It's much like getting us to drive more fuel efficient cars. When it hits the bottom line to the degree that driving a hybrid makes sense, then we will drive a hybrid. The airlines will eventually react and change things around, but only when the bottom line is hurting enough. It hasn't reached that point yet.
You're right, a piece of concrete can only handle a finite number of ops and the FAA may eventually rule about that. Sooner than that, the laws of profit and loss will rule on it. It's much like getting us to drive more fuel efficient cars. When it hits the bottom line to the degree that driving a hybrid makes sense, then we will drive a hybrid. The airlines will eventually react and change things around, but only when the bottom line is hurting enough. It hasn't reached that point yet.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing so would effectively return us pre-1978.
.
We need some impartial entity to act as referees. Only then will there be hope that the US Airline industry might recover to a point that one might be able to say "Proud to be an Airline Pilot, without breaking into hysterics.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the State Highway Department limit the number of cars that can drive anyplace? Maybe the highway dept should upgrade their highways, build new ones. Come to think of it, maybe the gov't could build new airports, add runways, hire a few more controllers, and update their system.
Just what we need- the government running business.
Just what we need- the government running business.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Age: 77
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame it on Carter....deregulation brought up loads of flightsmounted. Now locos and business/corporate jets proliferate. Blame it on Reagan..set back the ATC by 50 years; FAA, fail again and again!
