@@barakl9 To be fair, there really isn’t a “convenient” airport in NYC. They all suck on their own ways. At least LGA is reasonably nice on the inside now with all the updates that were made. Then again, I’m a DEN based flyer, and our airport is extremely convenient IMHO.
Research KDAL. To me it is in violation of the commerce clause. The ongoing lawsuit is bullshit. The perimeter rule is bullshit. So is the amendment to the Wright amendment.
LaGuardia should be closed altogether, and a new regional airport should be built on the grounds of the Pilgrim State Hospital near Hauppauge, Long Island
No it’s because they don’t have enough gates to handle more flights but after the redevelopment of the airport that might change I think it will be a great idea
A wide body can get in and easier than say a fully.loaded A321. Just becasue a wide body wouldn't be going in as a fully loaded plane probably. The bigger issue is that gates aren't designed to handle the wide body wing span. They could get one in but it would end up having to use the space of two gates to get it in.
@@vbscript2 They actually are. Delta used to fly L1011s in there all the time. Plus my first trip in I watched a KC10 takeoff that was there for a publicity thing. It taxied around ok. Now taxi ways inside the gate area my be a problem but the main ones are just fine.
Airlines get around the "Perimeter Rule" at LGA all the time by making intermediate stops on their TRANSCON routes. Like LAX stopover in ATL then continue to LGA for Delta. LAX stopover in ORD then continue to LGA for American.
Not so much. You're referring to "through" flights marketed and sold as LAXORDLGA, but the majority of customers are "local" customers, buying tickets on just LAXORD or just ORDLGA; it's not sold solely as LAXLGA with a tech stop.
before the pandemic LGA was absolutly crowded, although they get a complete make over it does not change the fact that at peak hours there were some 20 planes queues for take off. So as so many slots are already blocked at LGA and even bigger planes are used (less 50seaters and more 737 and A320s). Even if transcon and transatlantic flights were to be allowed there would be no slots.
The perimeter rule could be lifted, but how can LGA accommodate such a change? Even with the terminal expansions, LGA is at capacity. Where would gate and slot accommodations come from? I don't honestly see this happening, because even secondary cities receiving LGA services are profitable (I would imagine) and therefore these flights would need to be eradicated in order to accommodate hub flying.
Sub million passengers airports are what I consider secondary airports bar a few exceptions. The thing it would be more profitable for longer routes. I also think it would boost traffic at WestcHester and Islip. And that would boost capacity at LGA itself as transcon routes would be upgauged.
They likely could shift their current slots to longer routes. This is done all the time at other airports, and they could shift a shorter range flight to a longer one that might be more profitable. Likely could charge more than JFK given its proximity too.
This is the reason there's hesitation to lift the perimeter rule; airlines currently flying routes like LGAPBI or LGATYS would suddenly use those slots for more lucrative LGASFO, LGALAX, LGASEA, LGAPHX, and other similar routes. Many small communities within the perimeter would immediately lose nonstop service to/from NY.
@@sosaix3545 I think that could be fixed by either limiting destinations to either new routes served or as that would run into anti trust actions limiting the travel permitted rule to capping either # of seats sold to specific airports probably some type of formula or just saying no routes could be launched who serves over x number of passengers a year (to account for Covid it could be the average amount in last 3 years of something similiar.
A solution not discussed, but one that could go a long way to solving capacity problems at many U. S. airports is creating an integrated transportation system that directly connects our airports to intercity passenger rail, as is common in Europe and much of the rest of the World. There would be far less demand for flights of under 500 to 750 miles if that traffic was diverted to rail and would open up slots for longer flights, making use of airports far more efficient.
Actually, some airports have that already and are used moderately. I have taken the train to the plane at Newark (EWR). It is almost non-stop (one stop at Newark's train station first) and then the airport. It is easy to use to get to the monorail to the airport. The problem is most companies don't bother; they use car service despite this. When I worked in the city, I would have to FILE AN EXCEPTION to use the train. It is mostly for leisure travelers, where a small percentage do use it. Even fewer business people use it. LAX is building to their Metro now as well. JFK has the monorail to Long Island Railroad to the city. So it exists just not many use it.
@@Buc_Stops_Here While some U. S. airports do have rail transit stations in them (Cleveland, Ohio was the first to have a rapid line come directly to its airport), what I'm really referring to are actual intercity heavy-rail line stations at the airport, with interline ticketing for a complete seamless journey. This is common practice in Europe.
@@paulw.woodring7304 Got it, I missed the intent. I know what you are talking about as I do this when I visit Germany all the time. Except Germany is a fraction of the US's size, and when they go on strike (as they do sometimes when I am visiting) the trains become a mess as bad as in the US.
@@Buc_Stops_Here As a former union railroader, I'm not going to deny the right of any worker to exercise one of the few tools workers have to leverage power in the workplace, to strike (that and seniority), and one that the vast majority of American workers do not have. As to the size of the country, it has more to do with population density than overall size. Am I suggesting that the airport in say Omaha, NE have an extensive intercity rail network radiating from it? No, but it should probably be possible to get directly from say Cleveland Hopkins Airport to Chicago O'Hare, or Detroit International by train, and more than once-a-day. International travelers from NE Ohio end up having to go to those two airports often because Cleveland lacks much international service, and those shorter connecting flights is where the rail connectivity option shines.
Back in the 1970's and '80's, when I was an air traffic controller at LaGuardia, wide-bodied DC-10's, L1011's and A300's would fly in and out of the airport. In fact, the DC10 and L1011 were specifically designed to be capable of operating at LGA.
OK. I'm going to question your claim( DC-10's and L-1011's using KLGA)....First, the takeoff distance for the DC-10 is over 9,800 feet. Both RWY's at KLGA (RWY 13/31 and RWY 4/22) are each 7,000 feet in length. Since it is impossible to put 6 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket, please explain how an aircraft with a 9,800 ft take off distance (see specs aerocorner.com/aircraft/mcdonnell-douglas-dc-10-10/) can use an airport with 7,000 foot runways. BTW, KLGA cannot accommodate heavies. Max Gross takeoff weight of a DC-10 (Full compliment of fuel and PAX is 555k lbs. Your turn.
@@patersonplankrd You are assuming that these aircraft took off with a maximum load of passengers and fuel. The only passengers I was certain of were the cockpit crew. Well, what can I tell you? I cleared many a DC-10, L1011, and A300 for takeoff at LaGuardia, and every one of them successfully got airborne from those 7,000 ft runways.
@@patersonplankrd Sir…. A simple google search would have showed DC-10s and L1011s did in fact fly into LGA. And at the risk of blowing your mind, so did 767s.
That would make it too easy for common people. Also train and USA in one sentence kinda hurts average American eye. Trains are for under developed countries like Japan, France or Germany....
People who live by the airport do not want it. That is why the airtrain proposal for LGA heads toward Citi Field rather than Forrest Hills LIRR station.
Currently BWI and EWR have high speed rail service on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. Building a train between JFK and LGA could work as they could put it on a viaduct above the Van Wick Expressway and then have it switch onto the Grand Central Parkway where the two intersect.
I would definitely love it since I live in the Bronx and the taxi ride is shorter and less expensive. I think that Newark would lose out as most New-Yorkers prefer to avoid New Jersey all together (if they could).
I don’t think that Newark will lose out as it has a very loyal traveler base with United. As a New Jersey resident I can say that it saves up to two hours going to JFK and up to three hours going to LGA. People on Staten Island also use EWR as it is right next to them. United has a very successful hub at Newark and they have little insensitives to move it as they can stay at Newark when Delta and American have two smaller hubs each at LaGuardia and JFK. I think that the airport that would lose out the most would be JFK. Delta basically only has JFK as a hub to serve longer routes and LaGuardia services the shorter routes. If the rule was lifted I could see Delta slowly move to LaGuardia. Currently both Delta and American have hubs at both JFK and LaGuardia which makes connecting a complete mess. What I think that they should actually do is expand JFK airport into Jamaica bay, move all of the flights there from LaGuardia, close LaGuardia down, and then they would have one mega-airport.
@@TysonIke People on Long Island are next to EWR?!? Gotta look at a map, my friend. Long Islanders may use LGA over JFK depending on which part of the island they're on.
Bear in mind that I’ve flown out (not in) of LGA once, I admit that lifting the perimeter rule wouldn’t do that much for the airport but trying to increase arrival/departure slots would not do. From the time the door closed to getting airborne was close to half an hour, and from what I’m told, that’s a good day!
They won't lift the Perimeter Rule because of the presence of JFK airport, which is designed to handle longer flights. Also, the relatively short length of LGA's runways mitigate against longer range flying anyway.
What do you mean longer range flights? Airlines have been flying to LAX and other California destinations from LGA on Saturdays for a while now. That's about as long distance as you can get.
My family and i flew into Laguerta on vacation once. Laguerta definitely needs a subway/train/other connection other than Cabs. Atlanta has this. This was pre gov. Flu.
I love that this is the only airport in the NYC area where an an employee can actually ride their bicycle into. When in traffic bicycles can get through traffic much easier. Just last night I ride my folding Brompton bike to pick up my son and then we took mass transit home to NJ. It would be great if ALL airports offered a safe way to bike into airports.
Your perimeter maps for DCA is in kilometers, not miles. The 1250mi perimeter for DCA, for instance, includes all of Florida and just barely includes Dallas and Houston.
I grew up in the flight path of LGA. When I took my first flight on Eastern Airlines, I later worked for them at JFK in college, I saw my mother hanging curtains in the living room when we were landing. One thing I learned while working for eastern is that pilots were not crazy about the airport. It has short runways, 7000 feet, and water on both ends. Several planes did wind up in the river. On top of that it was a steeper than normal approach and departure which added to the dislike. It was built in the 1930's for props. They could extend the runways being that there is water on each end but unlikely they will. The final pain to LGA is the traffic around it.
One correction, Lisbon and Porto are also within the range of the A321LR, for example TAP Air Portugal uses these aircraft on their Newark, Washington, Boston, Toronto and Motreal routes.
No , back in the ‘80s and ‘90s it was heavily congested with massive delays and it was said if there was delays at La Guardia it would have a ripple effect throughout the domestic network across the country . And widebodiez used to fly out of LaGuardia as well . DC 10s , L1011 , B767-200,300,400s and Airbus A300 . I flew on a Delta airlines L1011 from LGA -FLL In 1986
There was talk by Bloomberg when he Mayor of NYC, that he would like to see Rikers Island Prison shut down and expand La Guardia on to it. The process of shutting down Riker's has started. Bloomberg did fly in and out of La Guardia with his Falcon 50s (he has at least 2), and parked at Marine Air Terminal while Mayor. He is a pilot, so he is enthusiastic about expanding La Guardia Airport.
Rikers is a jail, to shut down that jail you’d have to have several multiple small jails take its place which nyc doesn’t have. The city owns Rikers, they make a lot of money from it. To find space throughout the 5 boroughs to place the thousands at Rikers is impossible.
Its all well and good to offer more flights to more destinations, but I heard LaGuardia is a very small, run-down airport, with refurbishment only just getting underway or some parts completed. With short runways and limited airspace around it, can LaGuardia handle many more flights and passengers, without exceeding capacity and requiring expansion?
Yes the rule should be lifted.. No matter what its intentions are, it amounts to unfair competition. Let's say I own a small airline that only operates out LGA in the New York area. That rule eliminates me from flying to the west coast. Larger airlines have a presence at all the NY area airports. My company may be a relatively small airline..maybe my airline is not large enough to have a presence at EWR, JFK, LGA. That rule assures that only the big boys can serve the longer distance routes..plus it adds extra cost for the customers. I notice a nonstop flight costs less than a connecting flight to the same destination.
I remember when DCA (Washington Reagan) extended the rules to allow Delta to fly NON-STOP from DC to DFW (Dallas-Ft. Worth). I booked a flight and got on only to find out that the paperwork had not been completed and there would be a one-week delay. We took off, went 15 minutes to IAD (Dulles -- in the Virginia suburbs) and did a "touch and go" landing-take off and then on to Dallas. It was frustrating but fun. Dennis
What New York City needs is a huge international airport built in the Meadowlands of New Jersey --- with Newark kept open for logistics only. (principally airfreight.) This new airport would be connected to Manhattan with a rail link over the George Washington Bridge and another through the existing Hudson Tubes to Lower Manhattan.
So I don’t think that’s feasible. As the center of population that uses the NYC airport system (main 3) is probably centered a tad south of LGA. So even if EWR is replaced and tries to replicate the scale of Behring starfish airport A: eminent domain would be unviable and there’s no undeveloped land there. Personally as detailed in another comment some sort of Philly NYC CNJ system would probably be best. So my idea is roughly that either Trenton airport (only has service by Frontier atm iirc) is vastly expanded or New Brunswick gets an airport about the same size and scope as Portland Maine (900k routes to most major hubs east of Mississippi and add in some P2P routes to cities like Pitt and Florida/vacation spots and that not only helps Philly airport as it takes away some of the NJ who use Philly but also non NYC metro NJers who use EWR. Then that means EWR can handle more NYC passengers taking passengers away from LGA and JFK and if you throw in expanding the routes offered by White Plains airport and along Island airport JetBlue serves White Plain so it’s a not insignificant airport and Long Island gets southwest service and also happens to be part of southwests most frequently traveled non directly connected airport pair. (Islip to Midway Chicago) and that would likely solve a lot of issues as suburban NYC doesn’t really have an airport like Houston has a Barth and south airport.
A couple things of Note. AC currently operates YUL-LGA and DL used to operate YUL-LGA and YHZ-LGA. I would like to see DL return to YHZ once restrictions are lifted/eased in Canada. I do recall AA was to operate LGA-BDA Saturday service starting 21DEC19, I do not see BDA in their schedule for this winter and I am unsure if they did operate it during 2019 winter. AA currently operates LGA-NAS and LGA-AUA Saturday service (BDA/AUA/NAS do have US preclear). Aside from runway length being an issue in LGA I read somewhere (could be hearsay) that the reason for this radius was to limit the amount of fuel an aircraft will have onboard (being so close to heavily populated business centers and the reason for the Saturday exemption is because these centers are less populated), this could be myth because with the air holds and lengthy taxi out times in LGA an aircraft has to hold a stupid amount of fuel.
Before there was a JFK airport (or even Idlewild), LaGuardia was New York's International Airport. The Customs facility is STILL there -- in the old Marine Air Terminal --- but it's disused since Idlewild/JFK was built...
I was strongly in favor of lifting the perimeter rule for Dallas Love Field as DFW is overwhelmingly huge, and DAL provides a good alternative. With that said, the one time I flew into LGA, I was impressed by how *small* it felt. Like, if I had been drugged, put on a plane, and woke up at the airport but not told where I was, I would assume I was in some small city in the midwest. Maybe I saw the smallish parts of LGA, but it felt much smaller than other secondary airports I have been in (DAL and Houston's William P. Hobby Airport, HOU). Although I think if you totaled up the number of enplanements it actually handles about twice as many passengers as DAL or HOU. So I could see it either way.
LaGuardia may have felt smaller than it actually was because it's divided up into multiple different completely separate terminals that aren't connected to each other instead of just one big one. But I agree in part. When I fly into LaGuardia, I get the distinct feeling that someone was on drugs, too. :)
It don’t know the complete rules, but I know that there are direct flights between DFW and LGA/DCA, which are both outside the perimeter rules for the airport. What makes these the exception?
LGA should remain a regional airport with frequent swift connections to/from JFK. (Monorail would be nice) JFK should be limited to domestic flights of GREATER THAN 750 miles to/from (with an exemption for Atlanta). KEWR should be expanded (or replaced with an airport in the Meadowlands) and accept all the flights it can get...
The NYC metro area already has enough airports as it is, especially when you add in TEB, HPN, and ISP. With the new terminals being built at EWR, I see little chance of it being replaced in the next 40-50 years. New York's problem with the current big three airports is that two of them can't expand much (or any) more than they already have without moving freeways, housing, and industry.
That idea makes no sense because JFK has tons of international flights that connect. In your system, anyone traveling from a city within 750 miles of JFK would be forced to switch airports (LGA to JFK) to connect to a long-haul international flight.
The airspace over NY has it limits. If you take the half full balloon no matter how you squeeze it, the air inside will be the same. LGA vs JFK vs EWR. The limit here is the airspace around these three airports. I live in Norway, but I try to follow the news. First time I flew from LGA was in aug 1986. It was Republic, NW had just bought the airline. I flew to DTW and the on to CMX. I was now a Rotary youth exchange student in Ontonagon MI for one school year. It was great!
I think the Perimeter Rule should stay in place. Even with the terminal expansions, there's limited space at LGA. This solves that problem. This also helps keep JFK and EWR busy, even though both of these airports are also constrained. NYC has the most congested airspace in the nation and that's not counting Teterboro or Islip (McArthur Long Island). Add in security concerns and it's clear the Perimeter rule needs to stay in place at LGA.
Good video, not sure if you know but in the late 80s and much of the 1990s LaGuardia was able to and still could host widebody aircraft. Specifically L-1011, DC-10 and 767 aircraft. Delta flew the 767 and 1011 quite a bit out of LGA as they both were able to take off on short runways. In addition the 757 is still flown out of LGA from time to time.
LGA used to have L-1011 wide body service all the time. The real issue was needing weight restriction due to runways but newer planes with more powerful engines eliminate that issue.
Interesting circumstances for LaGuardia today. In it's heyday, widebody Lockheed Martin L1011 and McDonnell Douglas DC-10's we're designed for LaGuardia and operated for many years to lift large capacities in and out daily.
The L-1011 and DC-10 were used for high-capacity flights out of LGA to destinations within 1,500 miles of LGA. But the high fuel cost of such operations resulted in the phaseout of these trijets from LGA.
I have no professional expierence with this subject but what if New Brunswick in NJ (or Trenton airport has explosive growth) gets a major airport about the same size as let’s say Paine field in Suburban Seattle with about 900k pax a year. That would not only get traffic from Philly but shift Newark pax to be more from NYC. And it could also cuase some New York residents to move from LGA JFK to Newark would help air congestion by shifting the commute. And if you couple that with expanded WestcHester and Islip service NYC would get a much less crowded airport system
Actually the "real problem" is the short runways at LGA. The two runways are only 7001' or 7003' and too short for long haul flights that require MUCH longer runways like those at JFK or EWR. Large international aircraft, fueled for an international flight are VERY heavy and need nearly 10,000' of runway to takeoff and land safely.
How would lifting LGA's perimeter rule benefit JetBlue and American, who primarily fly from JFK? Wouldn't it hurt them by providing more competition from LGA-based carriers that can now offer non-stop alternatives to JetBlue/American flights to JFK?
It would definitely hurt JetBlue. Currently United has their hub at Newark and it services all of their New York destinations with their operations at LaGuardia and JFK as additional service to Newark. Delta and American have hubs at LaGuardia and JFK but because of the rule they fly their short routes from LaGuardia and their longer routes for the most part from JFK. JetBlue then has their full network at JFK with them using LaGuardia and Newark airports for additional service. Newark airport is in New Jersey on the west side of New York City when LaGuardia and JFK are both on the east side and only 10 miles apart. This means that JetBlue is the only airline on the east side of New York to have all of their operations at one airport which is what passengers want.
La Guardia has a significant regional presence for American. Dont forget La Guardia was also a US Airways hub.....that same US Airways that is now called American....With Blue and American partnering up, that opens up a ton of smaller markets for Jetblue passengers.
I don't know if anyone mentioned that LGA was the design starting point for the Widebody Tri-Jets namely the DC-10 and L1011. They flew into and out of LGA for decades. And also, the 767's used LGA as well so even with the Perimeter rule, the airport could handle larger jets and perhaps allow for more slots to be made available by utilizing larger planes where one plane replaces 2 or 3 regional or other smaller planes.
I was not aware of the perimeter rule. Most regional jets have a range of 1500 miles, maybe most of the service at LGA hold be regional jet. Still can't figure out why they spent billions on the terminal upgrade and not have any connection to mass transit. An above ground people mover to Citi field and the subway there would have made LGA much more convenient. Even a ferry service to midtown would have been a upgrade over what is now there.
I did forget that the existing link to mass transit is the bus, but not many people ride that as opposed to trains & subways especially in NYC. Just read recently that they got the go ahead to start on the LGA Air Train. Should be interesting to see how over budget, and delayed that project will be. I still won't go to LGA, ISP is way too easy for me and rental cars are a breeze there, and the Air Train at JFK is pretty easy as well.
You only mention the rule but not the why. Laguardia is an old airport with limited land area for runways. Jumbo jets cannot land at LaGuardia. Its also a small airport with few runways. JFK is MUCH larger and can handle higher capacity.
@Danny Those planes were weight restricted going in out of LGA. The only aircraft that ever made it out with a full load all the time was the boeing 757. Another issue is the maximum pier weights, as LGA is supported by piers.
Yeah, the perimeter rule was put in place specifically to force that traffic out to JFK as a condition for spending the money for JFK to be built, ensuring that it could succeed. Everyone knew it was needed because LGA is too space-constrained, but carriers didn't want to move from LGA to JFK without being given assurances that all of the other carriers would, too, and that other carriers wouldn't be able to just start flying those same routes from LGA and having a competitive advantage due to being closer to Manhattan. Basically the same reason they had the Wright Amendment regarding Love Field and DFW in Dallas.
JetBlue and Delta can use their A220's to fly to UK and the EU - planes can easily take off from La Guardia, and the range on these new, comfortable, smaller planes is amazing. Perhaps on Saturday/Sunday time slots?
La Guardia lacks US customs/immigration services except for small business jets etc. That prevents international flights to La Guardia except from airports in Canada and a few in the Caribbean where U.S. pre-clearance exists. If it wasn't for the perimeter rule, flights could operate from Dublin and Shannon as they're the only airports in Europe with U.S. pre-clearance, but it's highly unlikely the perimeter rule will be lifted.
I hope they don't lift this until redevelopment is fully complete with rail connection to Mets-Willets point station. Having flown to and from LGA, at its current stage I would avoid it at all cost.
The renovations are already starting to take shape. They done an amazing job with terminal B at LGA. I think it will soon be the nicest airport in NYC. Confused at how Air Canada flies into it when it’s supposed to serve only domestic flights?
The US has agreements with other countries to have them do customs/immigration check up prior to boarding so as to alleviate to high demand at JFK and Liberty-N. Canada is one of those and I think the Dominican Republic out of Punta Cana is joining soon to that status.
As a New Mexican, a Delta flight from Albuquerque to LGA would be very beneficial. Especially since JetBlue is the only airline offering nonstop service to NYC (JFk). I think other smaller major cities would like such a connection.
The problem with the perimeter rule and the NYC airport system in general is that it makes connections impractical. When I was looking at flight options to West Africa, Delta's JFK-DKR flight looked ideal. But the only flights to NYC from my local airport were to LGA and EWR, so that would have involved a very messy airport change and losing the protection of flying on a single ticket. So I flew a much longer itinerary through CDG instead.
YTZ also functionally has a perimeter rule. By limiting the aircraft type to props only there is a maximum range that can be attained from that airfield.
But it sure is convenient! The thing I miss is flying out of small fields. Not everywhere must be Pearson, not every aircraft must be a 767. When I was popping up to see family, I’d fly into Bishop, then hop over to the train station for my final leg. UPX is a great asset, but expensive, and until then cancelled flights to bishop from my town, I hated the queues at Pearson. I’m a firm supporter of keeping bishop small, it’s for hopping over to Ottawa, New York, Montreal, North Bay. There’s a reason they built Pearson.
I used to work for the Port Authority, the operator of the NYC region’s airports. PANYNJ is responsible for the perimeter rule and the sole reason it’s there is to protect JFK and EWR. If the perimeter rule was lifted, carriers would move a lot of their flights from EWR and JFK to LGA and the two bigger airports would lose traffic. In the interest of the entire region’s airport system, it’s best to keep the rule in place. It works fine and there isn’t anything wrong with LGA being a distance-restricted airport. Passengers from outside the perimeter region are served fine by JFK and EWR, both of which have rail access to Manhattan, which LGA lacks and probably won’t get any time soon. With DCA, the only reason they relaxed their perimeter rule was because a few US Senators from western states complained about the lack of direct flights to their home states and demanded that DCA be opened for them, which eventually happened.
I write this comment while sitting in an American Embraer jet heading to Chicago. The plane left the gate at 1230 and we've been sitting on the tarmac for about 30 minutes. American changed my flight last minute was supposed to fly direct to sfo but they rerouted me through Chicago. It's not the best of airports and when you factor sitting and waiting for 30 minutes it makes it seem even worse.
Given the distance limitation, that would be perfect to serve a Brasilia to NYC flight, once a narrow-body seems more fit to fill the demand for a Brazil connection.
One big issue with LGA is that it’s surrounded by water. So it’s one of the harder airports to land at. And the runways are short. So you have to make sure you don’t go into the water and that you stop in time. Overall I like LGA. Flying into there in about 2 weeks.
I've flown out of and into LaGuardia Airport many times in the past, and I have this to say about LaGuardia Airport...I try to avoid using LaGaurdia as much as possible! I prefer to use either JFK or Islip/MacArthur airports.
Ditto that! I really prefer MacArthur as it is super easy to get in and out of. Have not been to JFK or LGA in years now, but if I had to go it would be JFK. They spent billions on the terminal upgrade to LGA but did not address the key issue. There needs to be a link to mass transit right from the terminal, preferably a above ground people mover to Citi field and connect to the subway.
@@USNveteran I like MacArthur because its small size makes it easy to get into and out of, plus it is easy to get to both Sunrise Highway and the LIE. JFK is great because of the Airtrain link. I'd take the LIRR to Jamaica, and then transfer to Airtrain.
Mama Thaker the a380 can not land at LaGuardia airport. Both runways are only 7,000 feet. An a380 needs at least 9,000 or 10,000 feet to stop. You probably are talking about JFK international airport. They have long runways and is one of the airports in the New York that do international flights. Newark does international too.
LGA & DCA are restricted due to their overall size and ability to handle large numbers of people, not necessarily how far away a destination is. The rule really doesn't make sense now a days since a A320 & 737's can go transcon to the west coast. If they do lift the rule, there should be some restriction on overall volume. Most of the airlines there also fly out of JFK and EWR and they should combine schedules to make sure LGA doesn't get overpacked. Plus LGA has more point to point shuttle flights to BOS, DCA, ORD, ATL, than JFK / EWR with the big 3. They also leave their longer high volume flights to their hubs at JFK & EWR to SFO / LAX / SEA etc, not to mention INTL flights. What they really should do is extend the Air Train from JFK to LGA so the airlines can have connecting flights to and from.
There is always the case to be made that the airport would generate much more revenue for itself with the added flights it would only be fair to benefit the airlines that already fly there to benefit the most.
Remember one "thing", KLGA, by necessity, has universally 'somewhat diffcult' approaches/departures for arriving aircraft; imho, "the LGA Whitestone approach", and an equally challenging "LGA Whitestone CLIMB" are not all that much fun, especially in Wx!!
Considering Delta's concourses at LGA are in the final phases of renovation, it'd be a shame if we can't fly LGA-SEA or LGA-LAX someday. I think the case is getting better each day since the planes that would fly these routes would be 739s and A321s, as opposed to now retired MD90s.
They never got full loads out. Especially in the summer, people got bumped because of lousy performance courtesy of short runways. Only the 757 got the job done.
Can a Third Bridge Like the Throgs Neck Bridge Be Built To Land in North Queens To Reduce Traffic To Westchester County. Closing LaGuardia Airport Is a Better Option
“Southwest was one of the major catalysts of this growth at DAL.” Yeah …I think being the sole driving force behind the repeal and then having 18 out of 20 gates immediately afterward makes you, y’know, *the* catalyst.
You CAN get 767s in there so it would definitely be possible to have LGA-LHR however it’s extremely unlikely. Anything bigger than the 767 would be too wide for the taxiways
Nope. Just because you can get a 767 into LGA doesn’t mean you can get it from there to London. London is far away, so it takes a lot of gas to get there. Gas has weight. More gas makes the plane heavier…. While a 767 (as well as the larger DC-10, MD-11, and L1011) can get in and out of LGA, it can only do that when light, i.e. small fuel and cargo loads on short legs. Air Canada can do it to Toronto because they only need carry fuel for 300 nm. LHR is 3000 nm away - that’s a whole different situation when carrying fuel to fly the Atlantic with flag rule (international) reserve fuel - we’re talking 60,000 to 80,000 pounds of fuel alon, i.e. the weight of an entire CRJ 900. Add passengers, cargo and crew and its just not going to happen. But thanks for playing!
LaGuardia absolutely is capable of handling wide bodies. The L-1011 and DC-10 were designed to take off from that airport. They probably don’t have many today, but I’ve flown on a DL MD-11 out of LGA in the late 90s to Florida.
honestly, Id rather see more service out of Islip Airport than LGA, would make things much much easier for Long Islanders rather than having to travel to the city
Initially the perimeter rule was not a big deal since most planes would require longer runways to fly to the West Coast (with fuel tanks at max capacity). It's becoming less of an issue with the more fuel-efficient A321-Neo and Max. Now the bigger question is whether LGA is as relevant as it was in the 80s when most people lived in Uptown Manhattan. With younger (more affluent) NY residents now living mainly in downtown or Brooklyn, I wonder how critical LGA is critical to airlines. With the new terminals and additional airside ramps, it's still worth a fight. Not a huge one, though.
Montreal could be added tomorrow if Air Canada wanted to. It is within the current 1500 mile limit of LGA. They don't do it because it is more profitable to offer the flights to Toronto, where the film industry has set up a hub and the flights are full of business travelers from that industry for that reason. Even if on the long shot chance of this lifting of the limit I doubt you would see few if any additional flights to Canada - and definitely not Montreal. Even JFK and Newark don't offer a ton of flights to Canadian cities besides Toronto for that very reason. One reason why expansion will never happen - the residents around the airport hate the traffic and don't want more of it on the weekends.
I’m all for lifting the perimeter rule at LGA, but they need to do it properly. The port authority needs to carefully manage the take offs and landings, especially at peak times. I remember horribly well in the 1990’s, LGA was utter chaos. Regional jets were all the rage then, and there were so many regionals taking off and landing at peak times there would be over 1 hour taxiing times waiting to take off, in good weather. Add bad weather in the mix, and you easily had 3 to 6 hour delays at LGA for a 45 minute flight. It was a nightmare.
Lifting the perimeter rule would come at the of connections to smaller east coast/midwest cities. That capacity would be shifted to LAX, SFO, PHX and SLC. JetBlue and Delta run about a dozen flights each day to LAX from JFK. A lot of that service would move to LGA.
I’ve flown into and out of LGA a lot and not once have I thought, “this is a very convenient and pleasant airport”.
Not once. 😩
I’ve flown into dozens of times i every time I have thought “it’s more convenient than any other NYC airport.”
Yeah, It’s a very convenient and pleasant airport. I’m assuming it wasn’t for you. But it is for many.
@@barakl9 To be fair, there really isn’t a “convenient” airport in NYC. They all suck on their own ways. At least LGA is reasonably nice on the inside now with all the updates that were made. Then again, I’m a DEN based flyer, and our airport is extremely convenient IMHO.
@@KN-ko8ez LGA is much closer to Manhattan than JFK or Newark so it is more convenient for us
I didn't even know there were such a thing as a "Perimeter Rule". Thanks for educating me, RUclips algorithm
Research KDAL. To me it is in violation of the commerce clause. The ongoing lawsuit is bullshit. The perimeter rule is bullshit. So is the amendment to the Wright amendment.
I knew about the perimeter rule. That makes me a genius!
LaGuardia should be closed altogether, and a new regional airport should be built on the grounds of the Pilgrim State Hospital near Hauppauge, Long Island
I’m watching this saying to myself “I’ve flown to Denver several times from LGA. ?!?!?” Then I hear the exception lol
Yeah I was gonna say, LGA has like ~4 hour flights to Kalispell
Also the new route to LAX from LGA
same!
@@United1158 *Saturdays Only* ... Spirit also added SJU (Puerto rico) from LGA.
@@pilotnflyer The Kalispell flight is from JFK not LGA. I almost missed my flight last week because of this same mistake lol
I assumed flights were limited at LGA because of the runways and didn't know about the perimeter rule
No it’s because they don’t have enough gates to handle more flights but after the redevelopment of the airport that might change I think it will be a great idea
A wide body can get in and easier than say a fully.loaded A321. Just becasue a wide body wouldn't be going in as a fully loaded plane probably. The bigger issue is that gates aren't designed to handle the wide body wing span. They could get one in but it would end up having to use the space of two gates to get it in.
@@kylecampbell1444 Not just the gates. The taxiways aren't wide enough, either.
@@vbscript2 They actually are. Delta used to fly L1011s in there all the time. Plus my first trip in I watched a KC10 takeoff that was there for a publicity thing. It taxied around ok. Now taxi ways inside the gate area my be a problem but the main ones are just fine.
@@kylecampbell1444 AC used 767 to YYZ before the pandemic, so I think it is technically possible to fly transcon using a 76 or 75 from LGA
Airlines get around the "Perimeter Rule" at LGA all the time by making intermediate stops on their TRANSCON routes. Like LAX stopover in ATL then continue to LGA for Delta. LAX stopover in ORD then continue to LGA for American.
Not so much. You're referring to "through" flights marketed and sold as LAXORDLGA, but the majority of customers are "local" customers, buying tickets on just LAXORD or just ORDLGA; it's not sold solely as LAXLGA with a tech stop.
That's ridiculous. People wants non-stop flight. Not transit flights.
before the pandemic LGA was absolutly crowded, although they get a complete make over it does not change the fact that at peak hours there were some 20 planes queues for take off. So as so many slots are already blocked at LGA and even bigger planes are used (less 50seaters and more 737 and A320s). Even if transcon and transatlantic flights were to be allowed there would be no slots.
Only 20? Haha! In my day departure queues up to 60 aircraft were a summer staple during thunderstorm activity!
@@cactusjackNV no its really nice
@@greenmachine5600 Haven't been there since 2018; it wasn't fit to be a manure barn then....or for most of the years I was going there 😏
The perimeter rule could be lifted, but how can LGA accommodate such a change? Even with the terminal expansions, LGA is at capacity. Where would gate and slot accommodations come from? I don't honestly see this happening, because even secondary cities receiving LGA services are profitable (I would imagine) and therefore these flights would need to be eradicated in order to accommodate hub flying.
Sub million passengers airports are what I consider secondary airports bar a few exceptions. The thing it would be more profitable for longer routes. I also think it would boost traffic at WestcHester and Islip. And that would boost capacity at LGA itself as transcon routes would be upgauged.
They likely could shift their current slots to longer routes. This is done all the time at other airports, and they could shift a shorter range flight to a longer one that might be more profitable. Likely could charge more than JFK given its proximity too.
This is the reason there's hesitation to lift the perimeter rule; airlines currently flying routes like LGAPBI or LGATYS would suddenly use those slots for more lucrative LGASFO, LGALAX, LGASEA, LGAPHX, and other similar routes. Many small communities within the perimeter would immediately lose nonstop service to/from NY.
@@sosaix3545 please please put dashes. It’s so hard to read LGAPHX as LaGuardia to Phoenix
@@sosaix3545 I think that could be fixed by either limiting destinations to either new routes served or as that would run into anti trust actions limiting the travel permitted rule to capping either # of seats sold to specific airports probably some type of formula or just saying no routes could be launched who serves over x number of passengers a year (to account for Covid it could be the average amount in last 3 years of something similiar.
A solution not discussed, but one that could go a long way to solving capacity problems at many U. S. airports is creating an integrated transportation system that directly connects our airports to intercity passenger rail, as is common in Europe and much of the rest of the World. There would be far less demand for flights of under 500 to 750 miles if that traffic was diverted to rail and would open up slots for longer flights, making use of airports far more efficient.
The airline lobbyist would never let that happen.
Actually, some airports have that already and are used moderately. I have taken the train to the plane at Newark (EWR). It is almost non-stop (one stop at Newark's train station first) and then the airport. It is easy to use to get to the monorail to the airport. The problem is most companies don't bother; they use car service despite this. When I worked in the city, I would have to FILE AN EXCEPTION to use the train. It is mostly for leisure travelers, where a small percentage do use it. Even fewer business people use it. LAX is building to their Metro now as well. JFK has the monorail to Long Island Railroad to the city. So it exists just not many use it.
@@Buc_Stops_Here While some U. S. airports do have rail transit stations in them (Cleveland, Ohio was the first to have a rapid line come directly to its airport), what I'm really referring to are actual intercity heavy-rail line stations at the airport, with interline ticketing for a complete seamless journey. This is common practice in Europe.
@@paulw.woodring7304 Got it, I missed the intent. I know what you are talking about as I do this when I visit Germany all the time. Except Germany is a fraction of the US's size, and when they go on strike (as they do sometimes when I am visiting) the trains become a mess as bad as in the US.
@@Buc_Stops_Here As a former union railroader, I'm not going to deny the right of any worker to exercise one of the few tools workers have to leverage power in the workplace, to strike (that and seniority), and one that the vast majority of American workers do not have. As to the size of the country, it has more to do with population density than overall size. Am I suggesting that the airport in say Omaha, NE have an extensive intercity rail network radiating from it? No, but it should probably be possible to get directly from say Cleveland Hopkins Airport to Chicago O'Hare, or Detroit International by train, and more than once-a-day. International travelers from NE Ohio end up having to go to those two airports often because Cleveland lacks much international service, and those shorter connecting flights is where the rail connectivity option shines.
Back in the 1970's and '80's, when I was an air traffic controller at LaGuardia, wide-bodied DC-10's, L1011's and A300's would fly in and out of the airport. In fact, the DC10 and L1011 were specifically designed to be capable of operating at LGA.
OK. I'm going to question your claim( DC-10's and L-1011's using KLGA)....First, the takeoff distance for the DC-10 is over 9,800 feet. Both RWY's at KLGA (RWY 13/31 and RWY 4/22) are each 7,000 feet in length.
Since it is impossible to put 6 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket, please explain how an aircraft with a 9,800 ft take off distance (see specs aerocorner.com/aircraft/mcdonnell-douglas-dc-10-10/) can use an airport with 7,000 foot runways.
BTW, KLGA cannot accommodate heavies. Max Gross takeoff weight of a DC-10 (Full compliment of fuel and PAX is 555k lbs.
Your turn.
@@patersonplankrd Less fuel or ACL??
@@patersonplankrd You are assuming that these aircraft took off with a maximum load of passengers and fuel. The only passengers I was certain of were the cockpit crew.
Well, what can I tell you? I cleared many a DC-10, L1011, and A300 for takeoff at LaGuardia, and every one of them successfully got airborne from those 7,000 ft runways.
@@patersonplankrd Here, I found this: www.nycaviation.com/2014/08/heavies-lga-1970s-little-airport/35573
Any more questions?
@@patersonplankrd Sir…. A simple google search would have showed DC-10s and L1011s did in fact fly into LGA. And at the risk of blowing your mind, so did 767s.
imho EWR/JFK/LGA/SWF and DCA/IAD/BWI need high speed rail between each of them to allow for better use of the larger airports.
That would make it too easy for common people. Also train and USA in one sentence kinda hurts average American eye. Trains are for under developed countries like Japan, France or Germany....
People who live by the airport do not want it. That is why the airtrain proposal for LGA heads toward Citi Field rather than Forrest Hills LIRR station.
Currently BWI and EWR have high speed rail service on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. Building a train between JFK and LGA could work as they could put it on a viaduct above the Van Wick Expressway and then have it switch onto the Grand Central Parkway where the two intersect.
No that would be racist to lower income dark community
@@RocketAnthem Is that you Joe Biden?
If LaGuardia Airport gets expanded, it will just choke on other limitations, like the lack of rail connections.
I would definitely love it since I live in the Bronx and the taxi ride is shorter and less expensive. I think that Newark would lose out as most New-Yorkers prefer to avoid New Jersey all together (if they could).
Yeah man, ewr sucks
I don’t think that Newark will lose out as it has a very loyal traveler base with United. As a New Jersey resident I can say that it saves up to two hours going to JFK and up to three hours going to LGA. People on Staten Island also use EWR as it is right next to them. United has a very successful hub at Newark and they have little insensitives to move it as they can stay at Newark when Delta and American have two smaller hubs each at LaGuardia and JFK. I think that the airport that would lose out the most would be JFK. Delta basically only has JFK as a hub to serve longer routes and LaGuardia services the shorter routes. If the rule was lifted I could see Delta slowly move to LaGuardia. Currently both Delta and American have hubs at both JFK and LaGuardia which makes connecting a complete mess. What I think that they should actually do is expand JFK airport into Jamaica bay, move all of the flights there from LaGuardia, close LaGuardia down, and then they would have one mega-airport.
@@TysonIke People on Long Island are next to EWR?!? Gotta look at a map, my friend. Long Islanders may use LGA over JFK depending on which part of the island they're on.
@@mkkm945 My bad Staten Island. I’ll fix that
@@TysonIke Ahaha yup that makes much more sense :)
Bear in mind that I’ve flown out (not in) of LGA once, I admit that lifting the perimeter rule wouldn’t do that much for the airport but trying to increase arrival/departure slots would not do. From the time the door closed to getting airborne was close to half an hour, and from what I’m told, that’s a good day!
They won't lift the Perimeter Rule because of the presence of JFK airport, which is designed to handle longer flights. Also, the relatively short length of LGA's runways mitigate against longer range flying anyway.
What do you mean longer range flights? Airlines have been flying to LAX and other California destinations from LGA on Saturdays for a while now. That's about as long distance as you can get.
My family and i flew into Laguerta on vacation once. Laguerta definitely needs a subway/train/other connection other than Cabs.
Atlanta has this. This was pre gov. Flu.
You’d have to build through neighborhoods. They’re getting an air train which is highly disliked.
I love that this is the only airport in the NYC area where an an employee can actually ride their bicycle into. When in traffic bicycles can get through traffic much easier. Just last night I ride my folding Brompton bike to pick up my son and then we took mass transit home to NJ. It would be great if ALL airports offered a safe way to bike into airports.
Not all airports are in nyc. That idea would be very impractical
Reeegan National Airport, I'm crying 😂
I thought the same thing. LOL.
Roo-Nayld Reeegan
@@uppymcdowny58 The actor!?
"Who's the vice president, Jerry Lewis?"
Wish we'd never heeerd of Reeegan!
Flew outta lga a few times within the last few months. Gotta say it’s much improved with the upgrades
Your perimeter maps for DCA is in kilometers, not miles. The 1250mi perimeter for DCA, for instance, includes all of Florida and just barely includes Dallas and Houston.
I grew up in the flight path of LGA. When I took my first flight on Eastern Airlines, I later worked for them at JFK in college, I saw my mother hanging curtains in the living room when we were landing. One thing I learned while working for eastern is that pilots were not crazy about the airport. It has short runways, 7000 feet, and water on both ends. Several planes did wind up in the river. On top of that it was a steeper than normal approach and departure which added to the dislike. It was built in the 1930's for props. They could extend the runways being that there is water on each end but unlikely they will. The final pain to LGA is the traffic around it.
One correction, Lisbon and Porto are also within the range of the A321LR, for example TAP Air Portugal uses these aircraft on their Newark, Washington, Boston, Toronto and Motreal routes.
He forgot to include airports with US pre clearance. those 2 don't have it
So interesting to see how much Delta values LaGuardia!
Delta's business model requires a few small regional hubs around America with LaGuardia being one of them
No , back in the ‘80s and ‘90s it was heavily congested with massive delays and it was said if there was delays at La Guardia it would have a ripple effect throughout the domestic network across the country . And widebodiez used to fly out of LaGuardia as well . DC 10s , L1011 , B767-200,300,400s and Airbus A300 . I flew on a Delta airlines L1011 from LGA -FLL In 1986
Maybe not lifted exactly, but relaxed more or expanded up to the 2000mi it once was or even 2500mi.
1:33 Ronald Reagan’s last name is pronounced “raygen” not “reegan”
Raylly?
I think the pronunciation is really “Reegan.” Ronnie changed it.
He’s an Anglosexual, so forgive him.
There was talk by Bloomberg when he Mayor of NYC, that he would like to see Rikers Island Prison shut down and expand La Guardia on to it. The process of shutting down Riker's has started. Bloomberg did fly in and out of La Guardia with his Falcon 50s (he has at least 2), and parked at Marine Air Terminal while Mayor. He is a pilot, so he is enthusiastic about expanding La Guardia Airport.
Rikers is a jail, to shut down that jail you’d have to have several multiple small jails take its place which nyc doesn’t have. The city owns Rikers, they make a lot of money from it. To find space throughout the 5 boroughs to place the thousands at Rikers is impossible.
As a New Yorker…no LaGuardia is not convenient. Most people only go there if they have to.
LGA used to have Widebody plane operations. Only aeroplane capable to do so is B767-300/er & B767-400/er competitors to A330-200
Also the 757-200 flew there
@@sumeetbeniwal6365 And still does.
Hey, with all these types being mentioned, it won't be long before we see the Boeing 787 Dream-Come-True- Liner at L G A.
@@johnhenry6762 I don't see that happening since there hasn't been regularly scheduled widebody service at LGA in years.
@@sumeetbeniwal6365 757s are narrowbodies!!
You can already fly from Montreal to LGA
When weather causes delayed flights we have operated the 767ER into LGA for clean up. It works but is a tight fit.
I wish you still did that, we miss seeing the 76 at LGA. It was always a treat when it would come in.
Pre-Covid, LGA also had service from Ottawa (YOW) which also has a US pre-clearance facility.
Had to smile seeing so much of the b-roll in the video of PDX, my hometown airport, but it wasn’t listed as a potential expansion possibility.
My hometown airport and the best airport in the country 😊
I remember flying a DC-10 into LGA in the 80's. I think TWA
Its all well and good to offer more flights to more destinations, but I heard LaGuardia is a very small, run-down airport, with refurbishment only just getting underway or some parts completed. With short runways and limited airspace around it, can LaGuardia handle many more flights and passengers, without exceeding capacity and requiring expansion?
Should be completed by 2022
Yes the rule should be lifted.. No matter what its intentions are, it amounts to unfair competition. Let's say I own a small airline that only operates out LGA in the New York area. That rule eliminates me from flying to the west coast. Larger airlines have a presence at all the NY area airports. My company may be a relatively small airline..maybe my airline is not large enough to have a presence at EWR, JFK, LGA. That rule assures that only the big boys can serve the longer distance routes..plus it adds extra cost for the customers. I notice a nonstop flight costs less than a connecting flight to the same destination.
I remember when DCA (Washington Reagan) extended the rules to allow Delta to fly NON-STOP from DC to DFW (Dallas-Ft. Worth). I booked a flight and got on only to find out that the paperwork had not been completed and there would be a one-week delay. We took off, went 15 minutes to IAD (Dulles -- in the Virginia suburbs) and did a "touch and go" landing-take off and then on to Dallas. It was frustrating but fun. Dennis
Love to see the name changed back to DCA.
What New York City needs is a huge international airport built in the Meadowlands of New Jersey --- with Newark kept open for logistics only. (principally airfreight.) This new airport would be connected to Manhattan with a rail link over the George Washington Bridge and another through the existing Hudson Tubes to Lower Manhattan.
So I don’t think that’s feasible. As the center of population that uses the NYC airport system (main 3) is probably centered a tad south of LGA. So even if EWR is replaced and tries to replicate the scale of Behring starfish airport A: eminent domain would be unviable and there’s no undeveloped land there.
Personally as detailed in another comment some sort of Philly NYC CNJ system would probably be best.
So my idea is roughly that either Trenton airport (only has service by Frontier atm iirc) is vastly expanded or New Brunswick gets an airport about the same size and scope as Portland Maine (900k routes to most major hubs east of Mississippi and add in some P2P routes to cities like Pitt and Florida/vacation spots and that not only helps Philly airport as it takes away some of the NJ who use Philly but also non NYC metro NJers who use EWR. Then that means EWR can handle more NYC passengers taking passengers away from LGA and JFK and if you throw in expanding the routes offered by White Plains airport and along Island airport
JetBlue serves White Plain so it’s a not insignificant airport and Long Island gets southwest service and also happens to be part of southwests most frequently traveled non directly connected airport pair. (Islip to Midway Chicago) and that would likely solve a lot of issues as suburban NYC doesn’t really have an airport like Houston has a Barth and south airport.
I think most travelers (except those that live in NJ) prefer to land at JFK to get that New York City feeling and aora.
Thanks for this, I'd love to see a daily Dublin LGA service!
with the a321XLR so do I, pre-clearing in DUB or even further to BLL
If it helps, LGA has handled Delta's B767-400s in the past. So if regulations change in the future, and they could, you may get your wish.
A couple things of Note. AC currently operates YUL-LGA and DL used to operate YUL-LGA and YHZ-LGA. I would like to see DL return to YHZ once restrictions are lifted/eased in Canada.
I do recall AA was to operate LGA-BDA Saturday service starting 21DEC19, I do not see BDA in their schedule for this winter and I am unsure if they did operate it during 2019 winter. AA currently operates LGA-NAS and LGA-AUA Saturday service (BDA/AUA/NAS do have US preclear). Aside from runway length being an issue in LGA I read somewhere (could be hearsay) that the reason for this radius was to limit the amount of fuel an aircraft will have onboard (being so close to heavily populated business centers and the reason for the Saturday exemption is because these centers are less populated), this could be myth because with the air holds and lengthy taxi out times in LGA an aircraft has to hold a stupid amount of fuel.
Before there was a JFK airport (or even Idlewild), LaGuardia was New York's International Airport. The Customs facility is STILL there -- in the old Marine Air Terminal --- but it's disused since Idlewild/JFK was built...
LGA used to have wide body aircraft. American had DC10 to ORD and YYZ, National had DC10 to Florida, and Delta & Eastern had L1011 to Florida and ATL
In addition to Shannon and Dublin, Aruba has customs pre-clearance and is in reach of a large narrow body.
AA already flies from LGA to AUA, on Saturdays
I was strongly in favor of lifting the perimeter rule for Dallas Love Field as DFW is overwhelmingly huge, and DAL provides a good alternative.
With that said, the one time I flew into LGA, I was impressed by how *small* it felt. Like, if I had been drugged, put on a plane, and woke up at the airport but not told where I was, I would assume I was in some small city in the midwest. Maybe I saw the smallish parts of LGA, but it felt much smaller than other secondary airports I have been in (DAL and Houston's William P. Hobby Airport, HOU). Although I think if you totaled up the number of enplanements it actually handles about twice as many passengers as DAL or HOU.
So I could see it either way.
LaGuardia may have felt smaller than it actually was because it's divided up into multiple different completely separate terminals that aren't connected to each other instead of just one big one.
But I agree in part. When I fly into LaGuardia, I get the distinct feeling that someone was on drugs, too. :)
It don’t know the complete rules, but I know that there are direct flights between DFW and LGA/DCA, which are both outside the perimeter rules for the airport. What makes these the exception?
LGA should remain a regional airport with frequent swift connections to/from JFK. (Monorail would be nice)
JFK should be limited to domestic flights of GREATER THAN 750 miles to/from (with an exemption for Atlanta).
KEWR should be expanded (or replaced with an airport in the Meadowlands) and accept all the flights it can get...
The NYC metro area already has enough airports as it is, especially when you add in TEB, HPN, and ISP. With the new terminals being built at EWR, I see little chance of it being replaced in the next 40-50 years. New York's problem with the current big three airports is that two of them can't expand much (or any) more than they already have without moving freeways, housing, and industry.
oh yeah, and make it airside so people don't have to go back through security.
That idea makes no sense because JFK has tons of international flights that connect. In your system, anyone traveling from a city within 750 miles of JFK would be forced to switch airports (LGA to JFK) to connect to a long-haul international flight.
Uhhh Teterboro isn’t a valid airport for commercial use.
The airspace over NY has it limits. If you take the half full balloon no matter how you squeeze it, the air inside will be the same. LGA vs JFK vs EWR. The limit here is the airspace around these three airports. I live in Norway, but I try to follow the news. First time I flew from LGA was in aug 1986. It was Republic, NW had just bought the airline. I flew to DTW and the on to CMX. I was now a Rotary youth exchange student in Ontonagon MI for one school year. It was great!
I think the Perimeter Rule should stay in place. Even with the terminal expansions, there's limited space at LGA. This solves that problem. This also helps keep JFK and EWR busy, even though both of these airports are also constrained. NYC has the most congested airspace in the nation and that's not counting Teterboro or Islip (McArthur Long Island). Add in security concerns and it's clear the Perimeter rule needs to stay in place at LGA.
Good video, not sure if you know but in the late 80s and much of the 1990s LaGuardia was able to and still could host widebody aircraft. Specifically L-1011, DC-10 and 767 aircraft. Delta flew the 767 and 1011 quite a bit out of LGA as they both were able to take off on short runways. In addition the 757 is still flown out of LGA from time to time.
Thanks for the information. Yes, I heard that LGA has had lots of makeovers. Perhaps I could fly and see for myself.
LGA used to have L-1011 wide body service all the time. The real issue was needing weight restriction due to runways but newer planes with more powerful engines eliminate that issue.
There used to be widebodies at LGA!
Eastern flew their Tristars, same for TWA.
National and American flew their DC-10's.
Interesting circumstances for LaGuardia today. In it's heyday, widebody Lockheed Martin L1011 and McDonnell Douglas DC-10's we're designed for LaGuardia and operated for many years to lift large capacities in and out daily.
Yeah, my dad flew a DC-10 from LAX across the country no problem.
The L-1011 and DC-10 were used for high-capacity flights out of LGA to destinations within 1,500 miles of LGA. But the high fuel cost of such operations resulted in the phaseout of these trijets from LGA.
I loved Eastern Tristar service from LGA to MIA
I have no professional expierence with this subject but what if New Brunswick in NJ (or Trenton airport has explosive growth) gets a major airport about the same size as let’s say Paine field in Suburban Seattle with about 900k pax a year. That would not only get traffic from Philly but shift Newark pax to be more from NYC. And it could also cuase some New York residents to move from LGA JFK to Newark would help air congestion by shifting the commute. And if you couple that with expanded WestcHester and Islip service NYC would get a much less crowded airport system
Actually the "real problem" is the short runways at LGA. The two runways are only 7001' or 7003' and too short for long haul flights that require MUCH longer runways like those at JFK or EWR. Large international aircraft, fueled for an international flight are VERY heavy and need nearly 10,000' of runway to takeoff and land safely.
How would lifting LGA's perimeter rule benefit JetBlue and American, who primarily fly from JFK? Wouldn't it hurt them by providing more competition from LGA-based carriers that can now offer non-stop alternatives to JetBlue/American flights to JFK?
It would definitely hurt JetBlue. Currently United has their hub at Newark and it services all of their New York destinations with their operations at LaGuardia and JFK as additional service to Newark. Delta and American have hubs at LaGuardia and JFK but because of the rule they fly their short routes from LaGuardia and their longer routes for the most part from JFK. JetBlue then has their full network at JFK with them using LaGuardia and Newark airports for additional service. Newark airport is in New Jersey on the west side of New York City when LaGuardia and JFK are both on the east side and only 10 miles apart. This means that JetBlue is the only airline on the east side of New York to have all of their operations at one airport which is what passengers want.
La Guardia has a significant regional presence for American. Dont forget La Guardia was also a US Airways hub.....that same US Airways that is now called American....With Blue and American partnering up, that opens up a ton of smaller markets for Jetblue passengers.
I don't know if anyone mentioned that LGA was the design starting point for the Widebody Tri-Jets namely the DC-10 and L1011. They flew into and out of LGA for decades. And also, the 767's used LGA as well so even with the Perimeter rule, the airport could handle larger jets and perhaps allow for more slots to be made available by utilizing larger planes where one plane replaces 2 or 3 regional or other smaller planes.
I was not aware of the perimeter rule. Most regional jets have a range of 1500 miles, maybe most of the service at LGA hold be regional jet. Still can't figure out why they spent billions on the terminal upgrade and not have any connection to mass transit. An above ground people mover to Citi field and the subway there would have made LGA much more convenient. Even a ferry service to midtown would have been a upgrade over what is now there.
most of the service at LGA should be regional jet, typo.
I did forget that the existing link to mass transit is the bus, but not many people ride that as opposed to trains & subways especially in NYC. Just read recently that they got the go ahead to start on the LGA Air Train. Should be interesting to see how over budget, and delayed that project will be. I still won't go to LGA, ISP is way too easy for me and rental cars are a breeze there, and the Air Train at JFK is pretty easy as well.
You only mention the rule but not the why. Laguardia is an old airport with limited land area for runways. Jumbo jets cannot land at LaGuardia. Its also a small airport with few runways. JFK is MUCH larger and can handle higher capacity.
@Danny Those planes were weight restricted going in out of LGA. The only aircraft that ever made it out with a full load all the time was the boeing 757. Another issue is the maximum pier weights, as LGA is supported by piers.
Yeah, the perimeter rule was put in place specifically to force that traffic out to JFK as a condition for spending the money for JFK to be built, ensuring that it could succeed. Everyone knew it was needed because LGA is too space-constrained, but carriers didn't want to move from LGA to JFK without being given assurances that all of the other carriers would, too, and that other carriers wouldn't be able to just start flying those same routes from LGA and having a competitive advantage due to being closer to Manhattan.
Basically the same reason they had the Wright Amendment regarding Love Field and DFW in Dallas.
I read that it also has to do with reducing noise pollution.
@@ricahrdb Only after noise regulations started to be enforced.
JetBlue and Delta can use their A220's to fly to UK and the EU - planes can easily take off from La Guardia, and the range on these new, comfortable, smaller planes is amazing. Perhaps on Saturday/Sunday time slots?
La Guardia lacks US customs/immigration services except for small business jets etc. That prevents international flights to La Guardia except from airports in Canada and a few in the Caribbean where U.S. pre-clearance exists. If it wasn't for the perimeter rule, flights could operate from Dublin and Shannon as they're the only airports in Europe with U.S. pre-clearance, but it's highly unlikely the perimeter rule will be lifted.
I hope they don't lift this until redevelopment is fully complete with rail connection to Mets-Willets point station. Having flown to and from LGA, at its current stage I would avoid it at all cost.
The renovations are already starting to take shape. They done an amazing job with terminal B at LGA. I think it will soon be the nicest airport in NYC. Confused at how Air Canada flies into it when it’s supposed to serve only domestic flights?
Air Canada flies from YYZ, which has a USA pre-security screening, removing the need for this at LGA, essentially making it a domestic flight.
The US has agreements with other countries to have them do customs/immigration check up prior to boarding so as to alleviate to high demand at JFK and Liberty-N. Canada is one of those and I think the Dominican Republic out of Punta Cana is joining soon to that status.
Keep it the way it is, the Grand Central Parkway's congested enough 😅
As a New Mexican, a Delta flight from Albuquerque to LGA would be very beneficial. Especially since JetBlue is the only airline offering nonstop service to NYC (JFk). I think other smaller major cities would like such a connection.
The problem with the perimeter rule and the NYC airport system in general is that it makes connections impractical. When I was looking at flight options to West Africa, Delta's JFK-DKR flight looked ideal. But the only flights to NYC from my local airport were to LGA and EWR, so that would have involved a very messy airport change and losing the protection of flying on a single ticket. So I flew a much longer itinerary through CDG instead.
YTZ also functionally has a perimeter rule. By limiting the aircraft type to props only there is a maximum range that can be attained from that airfield.
But it sure is convenient! The thing I miss is flying out of small fields. Not everywhere must be Pearson, not every aircraft must be a 767. When I was popping up to see family, I’d fly into Bishop, then hop over to the train station for my final leg. UPX is a great asset, but expensive, and until then cancelled flights to bishop from my town, I hated the queues at Pearson. I’m a firm supporter of keeping bishop small, it’s for hopping over to Ottawa, New York, Montreal, North Bay. There’s a reason they built Pearson.
I used to work for the Port Authority, the operator of the NYC region’s airports. PANYNJ is responsible for the perimeter rule and the sole reason it’s there is to protect JFK and EWR. If the perimeter rule was lifted, carriers would move a lot of their flights from EWR and JFK to LGA and the two bigger airports would lose traffic. In the interest of the entire region’s airport system, it’s best to keep the rule in place. It works fine and there isn’t anything wrong with LGA being a distance-restricted airport. Passengers from outside the perimeter region are served fine by JFK and EWR, both of which have rail access to Manhattan, which LGA lacks and probably won’t get any time soon.
With DCA, the only reason they relaxed their perimeter rule was because a few US Senators from western states complained about the lack of direct flights to their home states and demanded that DCA be opened for them, which eventually happened.
What does the perimeter rule achieve?
Why does jfk and ewr HAVE to be the main airports?
I write this comment while sitting in an American Embraer jet heading to Chicago. The plane left the gate at 1230 and we've been sitting on the tarmac for about 30 minutes. American changed my flight last minute was supposed to fly direct to sfo but they rerouted me through Chicago. It's not the best of airports and when you factor sitting and waiting for 30 minutes it makes it seem even worse.
Given the distance limitation, that would be perfect to serve a Brasilia to NYC flight, once a narrow-body seems more fit to fill the demand for a Brazil connection.
One big issue with LGA is that it’s surrounded by water. So it’s one of the harder airports to land at. And the runways are short. So you have to make sure you don’t go into the water and that you stop in time. Overall I like LGA. Flying into there in about 2 weeks.
I've flown out of and into LaGuardia Airport many times in the past, and I have this to say about LaGuardia Airport...I try to avoid using LaGaurdia as much as possible! I prefer to use either JFK or Islip/MacArthur airports.
Same! Now I’m starting to prefer it over JFK because of the recent renovations 😂
@@chigg_ it’s so much better now. People just don’t know yet I guess.
Islip is so underrated
Ditto that! I really prefer MacArthur as it is super easy to get in and out of. Have not been to JFK or LGA in years now, but if I had to go it would be JFK. They spent billions on the terminal upgrade to LGA but did not address the key issue. There needs to be a link to mass transit right from the terminal, preferably a above ground people mover to Citi field and connect to the subway.
@@USNveteran I like MacArthur because its small size makes it easy to get into and out of, plus it is easy to get to both Sunrise Highway and the LIE. JFK is great because of the Airtrain link. I'd take the LIRR to Jamaica, and then transfer to Airtrain.
There were already flights between Montreal and LGA
Yep AA and Air Canada service the route with multiple flights a day before the pandemic.
La Guardia AirPort is already congested with traffic, imagine more? More delays.
Air Canada was sending 767’s there from YYZ up until a few years ago
Emirates was sending A380's there from DXB up until few years ago.
Mama Thaker the a380 can not land at LaGuardia airport. Both runways are only 7,000 feet. An a380 needs at least 9,000 or 10,000 feet to stop. You probably are talking about JFK international airport. They have long runways and is one of the airports in the New York that do international flights. Newark does international too.
@@sumeetbeniwal6365 That was a joke (although a bad one)...😏 I've stayed in US for 7 years and know the difference between JFK and LGA...
@@egg-h4b ohhh
LGA & DCA are restricted due to their overall size and ability to handle large numbers of people, not necessarily how far away a destination is. The rule really doesn't make sense now a days since a A320 & 737's can go transcon to the west coast. If they do lift the rule, there should be some restriction on overall volume. Most of the airlines there also fly out of JFK and EWR and they should combine schedules to make sure LGA doesn't get overpacked. Plus LGA has more point to point shuttle flights to BOS, DCA, ORD, ATL, than JFK / EWR with the big 3. They also leave their longer high volume flights to their hubs at JFK & EWR to SFO / LAX / SEA etc, not to mention INTL flights. What they really should do is extend the Air Train from JFK to LGA so the airlines can have connecting flights to and from.
There is always the case to be made that the airport would generate much more revenue for itself with the added flights it would only be fair to benefit the airlines that already fly there to benefit the most.
And Delta and American Airlines have a leg up.
Remember one "thing", KLGA, by necessity, has universally 'somewhat diffcult' approaches/departures for arriving aircraft; imho, "the LGA Whitestone approach", and an equally challenging "LGA Whitestone CLIMB" are not all that much fun, especially in Wx!!
Thanks for the information I didn't knew it
Considering Delta's concourses at LGA are in the final phases of renovation, it'd be a shame if we can't fly LGA-SEA or LGA-LAX someday. I think the case is getting better each day since the planes that would fly these routes would be 739s and A321s, as opposed to now retired MD90s.
flights could also potentially arrive from aruba as well.
I just noticed I found a treasure with this channel 🙌🏽
Wide bodies served LGA in the past ... I recall AA DC-10 ; EA A300; DL L-1011, etc
They never got full loads out. Especially in the summer, people got bumped because of lousy performance courtesy of short runways. Only the 757 got the job done.
The main airline I use is Delta and I'll be honest. If this happen for some reason I would still fly into JFK before flying into LaGuardia.
Can a Third Bridge
Like the
Throgs Neck Bridge
Be Built
To Land in
North Queens
To
Reduce
Traffic
To
Westchester
County.
Closing
LaGuardia Airport
Is a Better Option
“Southwest was one of the major catalysts of this growth at DAL.” Yeah …I think being the sole driving force behind the repeal and then having 18 out of 20 gates immediately afterward makes you, y’know, *the* catalyst.
You CAN get 767s in there so it would definitely be possible to have LGA-LHR however it’s extremely unlikely. Anything bigger than the 767 would be too wide for the taxiways
Nope. Just because you can get a 767 into LGA doesn’t mean you can get it from there to London. London is far away, so it takes a lot of gas to get there. Gas has weight. More gas makes the plane heavier….
While a 767 (as well as the larger DC-10, MD-11, and L1011) can get in and out of LGA, it can only do that when light, i.e. small fuel and cargo loads on short legs. Air Canada can do it to Toronto because they only need carry fuel for 300 nm. LHR is 3000 nm away - that’s a whole different situation when carrying fuel to fly the Atlantic with flag rule (international) reserve fuel - we’re talking 60,000 to 80,000 pounds of fuel alon, i.e. the weight of an entire CRJ 900. Add passengers, cargo and crew and its just not going to happen.
But thanks for playing!
@@Pupda damn u know a lot abt aviation
There actually is a new route from LGA-LAX on Spirit Airlines coming soon
I was just gonna say that I'd flown to DCA from Houston and then he mentioned that there were exceptions...
LaGuardia absolutely is capable of handling wide bodies. The L-1011 and DC-10 were designed to take off from that airport. They probably don’t have many today, but I’ve flown on a DL MD-11 out of LGA in the late 90s to Florida.
Back in the 80's DC-10's used to fly into LaGuardia. (American & Continental)
honestly, Id rather see more service out of Islip Airport than LGA, would make things much much easier for Long Islanders rather than having to travel to the city
The town of islip doesn’t have the money to front a bigger airport.
LGA perimeter rule has an exception for Denver, CO
Initially the perimeter rule was not a big deal since most planes would require longer runways to fly to the West Coast (with fuel tanks at max capacity). It's becoming less of an issue with the more fuel-efficient A321-Neo and Max. Now the bigger question is whether LGA is as relevant as it was in the 80s when most people lived in Uptown Manhattan. With younger (more affluent) NY residents now living mainly in downtown or Brooklyn, I wonder how critical LGA is critical to airlines. With the new terminals and additional airside ramps, it's still worth a fight. Not a huge one, though.
I live on Long Island and frequently fly and lga is the worst although getting better have had some sketchy landings there
Montreal could be added tomorrow if Air Canada wanted to. It is within the current 1500 mile limit of LGA. They don't do it because it is more profitable to offer the flights to Toronto, where the film industry has set up a hub and the flights are full of business travelers from that industry for that reason. Even if on the long shot chance of this lifting of the limit I doubt you would see few if any additional flights to Canada - and definitely not Montreal. Even JFK and Newark don't offer a ton of flights to Canadian cities besides Toronto for that very reason. One reason why expansion will never happen - the residents around the airport hate the traffic and don't want more of it on the weekends.
Laguardia used to have service by DC-10s and L-1011s.
Would possibly suite the BA London city fight's they stop in Shannon to pre clear customs already
I’m all for lifting the perimeter rule at LGA, but they need to do it properly. The port authority needs to carefully manage the take offs and landings, especially at peak times. I remember horribly well in the 1990’s, LGA was utter chaos. Regional jets were all the rage then, and there were so many regionals taking off and landing at peak times there would be over 1 hour taxiing times waiting to take off, in good weather. Add bad weather in the mix, and you easily had 3 to 6 hour delays at LGA for a 45 minute flight. It was a nightmare.
They should lift the perimeter rule. Issue slots based on runway capacity and available gates.
And on to the Caribbean! Yes! At least there is service to Bermuda from La Guardia.
Lifting the perimeter rule would come at the of connections to smaller east coast/midwest cities. That capacity would be shifted to LAX, SFO, PHX and SLC. JetBlue and Delta run about a dozen flights each day to LAX from JFK. A lot of that service would move to LGA.