4 ms·

I mean... it's not entirely untrue but at the same time airlines have been winding down their "hub and spoke" model for a point to point one for a while. That'

I mean... it's not entirely untrue but at the same time airlines have been winding down their "hub and spoke" model for a point to point one for a while. That's in part what doomed the A380, which was popular with airlines still going strong with hub-and-spoke (Emirates being by far the most prominent one) but is worthless in a point-to-point model.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> the A380 My worst nightmare, was pulling into a gate, and seeing one of those puppies arriving on the same concourse. Immigration queues are bad enough, with 747s, but the A380 is much worse.
- ikrenji 4y ago
  yeah well there is no reason why an entire A380 is being processed by two customs officers while 8 extra booths stand unused
nradov 4y ago
There are still a number of major airports that are slot constrained, especially now that passenger demand is growing again. It seems like there could be a profitable market for an efficient twin-engine airliner larger than the Boeing 777X. Perhaps even a double-decker?
- masklinn 4y ago
  > There are still a number of major airports that are slot constrained Major airports are major airports even in a point to point system. If everybody wants to go into or come out of NY, NY's airports are going to be slot constrained. Also when I say "winding down" I don't mean "killed entirely", most airlines still have home bases, and mix point to point with regional hubs (especially for international flights). But at the height of the hub-and-spokes model, unless you departed from or went to a hub you'd always need a layover.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    La Guardia is gimped by stupid rules about travel distance. I'm sure these rules made sense years and years ago when planes that could travel long distances were very loud, but by now, the airport has been there longer than most residents and planes are significantly quieter. From a net utility standpoint, NYC should just pay for "port packages" for nearby houses, add the cost to landing fees, and remove source/destination restrictions on La Guardia.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      La Guardia doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's too small for long range aircraft and increased traffic at LGA would create problems for JFK and EWR. Besides, the runways at LGA are much shorter than those at JFK, EWR, and extending the runways at any of those three is problematic. Even SWF has longer runways.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

> the A380 My worst nightmare, was pulling into a gate, and seeing one of those puppies arriving on the same concourse. Immigration queues are bad enough, with 747s, but the A380 is much worse.

ikrenji 4y ago
yeah well there is no reason why an entire A380 is being processed by two customs officers while 8 extra booths stand unused

nradov 4y ago

There are still a number of major airports that are slot constrained, especially now that passenger demand is growing again. It seems like there could be a profitable market for an efficient twin-engine airliner larger than the Boeing 777X. Perhaps even a double-decker?

masklinn 4y ago
> There are still a number of major airports that are slot constrained Major airports are major airports even in a point to point system. If everybody wants to go into or come out of NY, NY's airports are going to be slot constrained. Also when I say "winding down" I don't mean "killed entirely", most airlines still have home bases, and mix point to point with regional hubs (especially for international flights). But at the height of the hub-and-spokes model, unless you departed from or went to a hub you'd always need a layover.
- coredog64 4y ago
  La Guardia is gimped by stupid rules about travel distance. I'm sure these rules made sense years and years ago when planes that could travel long distances were very loud, but by now, the airport has been there longer than most residents and planes are significantly quieter. From a net utility standpoint, NYC should just pay for "port packages" for nearby houses, add the cost to landing fees, and remove source/destination restrictions on La Guardia.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    La Guardia doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's too small for long range aircraft and increased traffic at LGA would create problems for JFK and EWR. Besides, the runways at LGA are much shorter than those at JFK, EWR, and extending the runways at any of those three is problematic. Even SWF has longer runways.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]