No problem.

Limiting the number of seats into airports is a dumb idea, I think. If the airlines want to schedule more flights than an airport can handle, thats their own choice. Limited or setting a min seat requirement just goes against competition and actually limited airlines' ability to fill seats.

Having lots of choices of departure is what keeps seats filled. Lots of folks say lets replace four RJ flights with one 737. Well I can assure you that, that 737 will probably carry as many passengers that can fit in the RJ. If people don't have a choice of departure times, they'll just simply choose another airline or mode of transport that goes when they want. This is especially true for the business traveller. I'm all for selling slots to prevent utter chaos, but you can't limit capacity when the demand is obviously there. I'm all for mainline pilots flying RJ's and fixing all the other nonsense in this industry.
I say build a new runway in JFK out in the bay and extend the Airtrain out to LGA. Passengers making connections can fly into LGA and take ride to their international flight at JFK. Thats my pie-in-the-sky solution to that. :)

I see congestion as an airport problem. The airport authority has to the power to accept, deny or limit any operations to and from their facility. If the airlines have a problem with that, then they can build their own airfield.
People have the right to choose whatever mode or schedule they please. If they choose to fly then they have to adhere to the schedules of the airlines. If they really want their own flight on their schedule, they can charter a private jet.

Exactly my point....

Well, if you want a zero cost idea to significantly reduce ATC delays in the Northeast then seat requirements would fit the bill. Simply put, there are too many airplanes in a given amount of airspace. The most obvious way to fix that is to reduce the amount of airplanes going into that busy airspace. If you reduce the flights it's logical to fly airplanes into that airspace that can carry large amounts of people.

You're right, Im sure there are lots of ideas that are cheaper and easier to implement. Smaller airplanes with more frequency into the busiest airspace in the world coupled with the Passenger Bill of Rights will fix everything.

To quote P.J. O'Rourke

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. "


Personally, I find it amusing that the same people who are crying that "government screwed up the airlines" are also the same one's who are sure that LOTS more government will somehow "fix" them.

But hey . . .maybe THIS ONE TIME, they'll make things better, eh? :)

Normally I would agree with you. But the only thing worse than a politician is an airline exec.

Very simple ...Have that 200 pax airplane fly point to point instead of hub and spoke. Stop at ABE, then at BTV then SYR then where ever else...Hell we are already treated like bus drivers and passengers expect to pay bus fares to fly so why not provide a bus like service! 4 stops to get to where you want to be!

Heh. Well, I for one am not going to get wrapped up around the axle about either. I don't have ZERO impact on either politicians or airline execs.

First of all.. what is a "low cost" carrier? DAL is THE low COST carrier across the Atlantic. Is SWA still considered a "low cost" carrier? Their costs are as high if not higher in some respects than DAL's. Their fares certainly are.. So what does this bullplop term really mean?