By Peter Rutledge
(The first part of this letter appeared in last week’s edition.)
In looking at the effort to push LaGuardia Airport to the limits, it is helpful to be aware that the FAA has for the last few years been implementing a system in which separations between jetliners are reduced. What used to be 5 miles of separation can now be cut to 2½ miles by using satellite-based positioning. So jetliners are already flying closer together than in the past.
Among other things this means what used to be considered a close call is now within limits. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was instrumental in providing political support for what the FAA calls its “NextGen” project, but it isn’t working out too well at LaGuardia, which is often cited as the airport with the worst delays. (That’s because it is basically a small regional airport that is overloaded—it will always be last when compared to Kennedy Airport or other world-class facilities.)
NextGen may be a good idea in the wide open spaces out West but not so much at LaGuardia because LaGuardia suffers from so many problems. Water is a big one, LaGuardia is in an EPA-designated flood plain. It was turned into a lake for days by Superstorm Sandy. It used to sink into the watery soil by the bay to the point where steel beams had to be pounded into the ground to provide support. Unfortunately, saltwater then mixed with steel and set up electrical fields on the surface, affecting aircraft avionics.
The last time I checked the pilots’ handbook it was still warning that cockpit compasses might not be accurate at LaGuardia because of “electrical anomalies.” Then there are the geese—the ones that brought down Capt. Sully’s plane, the Miracle on the Hudson. They show up twice a year, fall and spring. This is because LaGuardia is smack dab in the middle of their flyway. Meanwhile, taller and taller buildings are sprouting as construction booms in Flushing not far from the runways. The list of LaGuardia’s shortcomings is pretty long. You would think you were in the Third World!
Now pressure is growing to end a system at LaGuardia that was put in place to prevent planes from smacking into each other on landing (“slot system”) and to limit the size of jetliners to medium, mostly regional flights (“perimeter rule”). The “new LaGuardia”—same size as the old LaGuardia—will have gates for Boeing 767-400E wide-bodies that can reach the West Coast and Europe. These are pretty big—wingspan of 170 feet vs. LaGuardia’s current design standard of 90 feet. Bigger jets, closer together, more people, same size airport with two stubby runways and no one-seat ride to Manhattan. There is also talk of doing away with the overnight curfew that gives Queens residents some respite from the constant roar of jetliners overhead.
Meanwhile, we hear the siren song of “more jobs,” “more business,” “we need special treatment” from the advocates. Never mind the problems, think of the money!
So I thought it might be useful to research who gets what in this marriage of convenience between landlord New York City and special-needs LaGuardia.
I found that New York City collects a pittance in rent for the 680 acres of prime waterfront real estate that is used for LaGuardia airport—the rent came to $1.27 per sq. ft. in 2015. For comparison, there are Manhattan retailers on upper Fifth Avenue—the magic circle that runs a few blocks south of 57th Street—where rents are $5,000 per sq. ft.—while LaGuardia pays NYC peanuts under a sweet contract that runs through 2050. How’s that for a tale of two cities? I suppose it is just a coincidence that real estate developer Joe Sitt, who funds Global Gimme Alliance, owns several properties on Fifth Avenue just outside the high rent district in Manhattan, properties whose value would gain if the magic circle were expanded by more out-of-town visitors shopping in high-end stores.
Then there is cold cash. New York State just came through with $2.3 billion from tax-exempt bonds and the Port Authority will kick in a couple of billion for the six- to eight-year LaGuardia project championed by Gov. Cuomo. The problem was that little LaGuardia was overcrowded with people and planes, so the solution must be—more people and bigger planes. I don’t know how we would manage without thinking like that.
The list goes on: New Yoek City exempts airlines from a 4.5 percent fuel tax; the city subsidizes airlines at LaGuardia by allowing them a free hand to operate “hubs.” Hub passengers fly in, change to another plane and never set foot outside the airport. This is 10 percent of total traffic, or 3 million passengers out of the 30 million annual total. This is a huge benefit to the airlines, but I see almost no benefit to New York City.
To continue: New York City refrains from noise ordinances that are common elsewhere because that would restrict Delta’s use of an aging fleet of rattletrap MD-88s that are the mainstay of its big LaGuardia fleet; the FAA’s “NextGen” requires jetliners to fly in narrow lanes, concentrating noise and emissions on residents living below at levels known to cause medical problems, which affects health-care costs across the region, with no compensation from the airlines. Etc., etc., etc.
If you follow the arguments of the various “advocates,” what we need at LaGuardia are more big jetliners landing and taking off at closer intervals, non-stop operations even in severe weather, airplanes zig-zagging through flocks of geese using a cockpit compass that might be wrong, buzzing the tops of taller and taller buildings that are going up in Flushing. At night.
Gov. Cuomo and Sen. Schumer should make it clear that the existing rules at LaGuardia—the slot system, the perimeter rule, the overnight curfew—are not negotiable. These rules were put in place in the interests of safety. LaGuardia needs to be kept safe by operating within the existing rules.
Peter Rutledge
Bayside
