Just remember, Colgan's Q400s are to only use 11/29, winds permitting. They can do intersection takeoffs and never conflict with 4/22 L/R. That really helps the arrival rate in EWR. Right Larry? Isn't that what you told everyone?

Wait a minute...

This was preached like gospel when I was in training 4 months before we got our first airplane. I remember the first few weeks in EWR we were required to request 11/29 for EVERY arrival and departure...EWR controllers fixed that problem real quick.

In two years EWR has graduated to on the rare night prop departures off 29.

So much for the dash 8 being the secret weapon of EWR.

As someone else mentioned, sequencing of 11s and 22ls are miserable and it seems as if 1 out of every 2 arrivals ends up prepping for the go around every time. The whole way from the marker in is "slow to final now..no max forward speed..can you give me a quick s turn?" That runway combo is newarks cryptonite.

This is part of my developing thesis, a fundamental disagreement with the people "guiding" our industry. They have it wrong.

Really more of a belief that one or two big plane flights a day would be preferable to most destinations, for most travelers. Especially if those flights would be able to operate "on time" most of the time. Better in my opinion than hourly service, where each flight is often way late due to traffic saturation (or ridiculously block timed to account for known taxi delays) Many have to be cancelled on a weather day, when reduced arrival capacity is caused by instrument conditions. People don't need frequency as much as they need efficiency and more seats at peak times.

The second leg of my tripod of disdain is a rant on the Orbitz and Travelocity style websites that show travel option search results on a cheapest price first presentation basis. (but that's for another thread) I've noticed some of the airlines now have a priority choice (ie. price vs. schedule). I always meet passengers that claim they'd be willing to pay a little more for convenience, but the mouse clicks the marketing people count argue otherwise. Exec. compensation is of course the third.

As far as the boxes on the big brown airplanes go, how much of the flight schedule over at those freight outfits will keep getting pushed into the daylight hours more traditionally used by people traveling? Actually the big brown and the big purple model is a better one. With the exception of a few Wiggins feeders that seem to fly mostly off peak and night hours, most of the boxes come and go on huge airplanes thereby using the airspace more efficiently.

Consider this: I'd like to see ATC priority given by number of souls on board.

I agree with you 100%. But there's no way this will ever get passed.

One way to do it would be to reduce the slots at delay proned airports by 20%. Then you tell each airline that is currently operating there that they must reduce their flights by 20% as well. This would result is bigger airplanes so they can move more passengers. Not to mention, ticket prices would soar.

After reading that other thread, does CO declaring min fuel bringing the 757 back from Europe contribute to the flow problems?

(not that they can help it.. min fuel is min fuel)

They could "help it" by putting an airframe on those routes that isn't so range-marginal...

That would require us to actually order appropriate airframes to the mission instead of flying 1-2 sizes to small which would mean a cash outlay which would mean beans out of place (read executive compensation) which might cause Kellner's or Smisek's head to explode.

Min Fuel advisory to ATC is just that.....an advisory. We all know that it does not constitutes 'priority handling', just an advisory that with any undo delays, an fuel emergency could arise/or be declared. In the BCN B757/Fuel thread, it is not uncommon on certain times of the year to have an unusual amount of min fuel advisory's when using the B757 on those longer runs (BCN, Berlin, Stockholm). It seems that the company 'looks the other way' and finds this kind of operations acceptable for day to day ops when returning from those longer runs into the already congested NY airspace.

Personal experience.....Coming back from Europe on a Random Track, we knew we were going to tight on fuel with EWR landing North on our return. At about 30W, we coordinated with ATC Desk & Dispatch who worked with BOS to take us off shore and eventually over JFK to sequence us into the 4's in EWR. When leave BOS center, we checked on w/ NY center just north of the Islip area. Upon initial contact w/ NY center, we told them we were minimum fuel. There was a pause on the radio after our check on, then a voice change (supervisor). The controller asked us to state "souls & fuel"....puzzled, we told them as plain as day, we were NOT emergency fuel, but min fuel at this time. The supervisor told us that he realized that, and was directing us that we were landing at JFK. This clearance was given to us around 10 miles North of JFK. Good thing we had an IRO b/c it was a monkey show getting the JFK plates out of the "brick" at the last minute during the sequencing for the west bound landing at JFK.

When we got on the ground and parked at one of the hard-stands for gas at JFK, the CA called NY center and spoke with that supervisor who gave us the clearance. The controller was clear, and made no bones about it. He told the CA that there have been many flts that have declared min fuel time and time again, just about all of them B757s coming west bound from' 'deep' European cities. He pointed out that ATC tries to work with us on the 'min fuel', but more times than not, it just backs things up on the sequencing. In a nutshell, min fuel became 'somewhat' of a routine operation, not an 'unusual advisory'. He went on to tell the CA that on that day we would have probably been sent down to Robinsville w/ a possible hold prior to the approaches for the 4's....w/ that being the case, he said that was his reasoning to step in and make that decision as a controller w/o giving detailed/lengthy explanation on the radio that afternoon.

Answering your question, I would say yes it does to a certain extent. We were a product of it that day and were delt with it accordingly.

I will point one thing out about declaring min fuel with NYC. They will at times follow up to determine how you got to min fuel. If you were not held or delayed and you had to declare min fuel they are especially likely to look into it. I know two different crews who ended up with FAA action because they pushed the fuel going into the NYC complex. If your coming from the north into either JFK or EWR the traffic flow is usually well known by dispatch. If your going to have to try and get special handling to land then its best to go to Gander or Boston and avoid issues later with the FAA.

Actually it would require Boeing to be able to deliver those airframes on order...