A few days ago, we saw a United Boeing 767 hit a truck and light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike while on final approach to runway 29 at Newark Airport (EWR). Fortunately no one was seriously injured, so hopefully there’s a lesson to be learned here, to prevent something similar in the future. Along those lines…
In this post:
Newark Airport’s runway 29 is sort of a problem
There’s quite a bit of discussion going on regarding what could cause an accident like this to happen, because suffice it to say, commercial aircraft shouldn’t be clipping cars on the interstate.
While the above footage (from Sunday’s incident) is obviously the wildest, the reality is that there have been quite a few very low approach landing videos from this runway over time.
What’s going on here? Well, runway 29 is used as needed for landings based on the winds. Here’s the issue:
- The runway is only 6,725 feet long, and for wide body aircraft, that’s very close to the minimum runway length they need; this means the room for error is limited, so pilots are going to try to land toward the beginning of the touchdown zone
- It seems utterly moronic to have an elevated interstate right at the edge of such a short runway, for obvious reasons (see all of the above videos!)
- There’s no ILS approach for runway 29, but just a series of RNAV approaches that go as low as 490 feet, at which point it becomes a visual segment
When you add in all of these factors, plus you see the above videos, it’s not difficult to think “oh, that could end very badly.” The United pilots and truck driver got really lucky here, as I see it. If the plane had instead been just feet lower, and had impacted that perimeter wall, I imagine this could’ve ended much worse.
Is there a practical solution to this runway issue?
Newark Airport is already known for constantly being congested, so any additional restrictions on runways will complicate things further. But of course safety is paramount, and can’t be overlooked in the name of operational efficiency.
It’s not that runway 29 needs to be shut down, but maybe investigators should look into whether restrictions should at least be placed on wide bodies landing there. Yes, pilots manage to safely land here day in and day out, but the safety margins just might not be there.
I’ve seen some people suggest that this portion of the interstate should simply be closed, but I don’t view that as a reasonable or practical solution.
Bottom line
On Sunday, a United Boeing 767 clipped a truck and light pole while on approach to Newark Airport’s runway 29. While that absolutely shouldn’t happen, when you look at the circumstances, you can kind of see what might’ve contributed to this.
Runway 29 is rather short (especially for wide body aircraft), and there’s an elevated interstate right at the approach end of it. When you consider that this is a visual approach, this all just seems rather risky. Also, in terms of plane spotting, the New Jersey Turnpike shouldn’t feel like Maho Beach, in my opinion.
Do you think we’ll see any new rules related to Newark’s runway 29? Or do you think this incident will be forgotten in a week?
Perhaps the pilots pay attention to the PAPI lights and DON'T FLY BELOW THE GLIDEPATH!
People keep speculating about this runway being at the limits for a widebody to land on. I literally just ran the landing data for a B772. on a dry runway at max landing weight, you only need a published landing distance available of 4324'. That is NOT how much distance it takes to stop the plane, but what the published landing distance available needs to be for the runway of intended landing (will be different...
People keep speculating about this runway being at the limits for a widebody to land on. I literally just ran the landing data for a B772. on a dry runway at max landing weight, you only need a published landing distance available of 4324'. That is NOT how much distance it takes to stop the plane, but what the published landing distance available needs to be for the runway of intended landing (will be different on this runway vs runway length due to the displaced threshold) to comply with 14CFR Part 121.195 which states"...would allow a full stop landing...within 60% of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50ft above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. This means, not withstanding obstacles, you overfly the threshold at 50' and land in the normal touchdown zone, you will stop within 60% of that runways length.
Landing distance calculators are one of the most misunderstood apps in aviation and there needs to be a strong push on education to correct this misunderstanding.
first, feel free to provide the data that UA uses to provide its pilots and specifically for a 764 - which was what was involved on this flight.
and second, airplanes clipping traffic on adjacent runways may or may not be because the runway is not capable but because pilots didn't execute what needed to be executed. It is the margin of error that makes or breaks this approach - and there just is very...
first, feel free to provide the data that UA uses to provide its pilots and specifically for a 764 - which was what was involved on this flight.
and second, airplanes clipping traffic on adjacent runways may or may not be because the runway is not capable but because pilots didn't execute what needed to be executed. It is the margin of error that makes or breaks this approach - and there just is very little of it.
Aviation safety is not about managing to an exact standard but whether there is enough margin for the inevitable variance from the established standard
Nothing. It’s not that tricky.
Can you imagine changing the Springsteen song, Born to Run.
We're sprung from cages out on the NJ Pike
Chrome wheeled, fuel-injected and stepping out over the line
It's a death trap, with United flying on my head... ok lol
Obvious solution: elevate highway 75, and lower the turnpike instead
Another clickbate article. It's an unnecessary topic. The conclusion you provide is the obvious one.
Agree with the others. I am more interested in the blog getting back to the purpose - points, miles, credit cards, travel, deals, etc and what the blog is doing to control racist and poltiical posts. Over the years the blog has come to encourage this based on the content.
Using Google Earth, there's 975' at the end of runway 29 that could be reclaimed by undergrounding Brewster Rd and Spring Street without having to touch Highway 9. Then the touchdown zone could be moved west far reducing the problem.
If this was Delta.
Tim would tell us how profitable it is to land on runway 29 but UA doesn't deserve to use it.
And it's the union's fault for the pilot to fly such a low approach, a non union pilot would have made it highest just like their revenues.
Lucky for us it was a 767. Tim would be having a day about UA flying 757s.
But wait, he forgot the part that DL 767 are also terrible and best to avoid.
all of these hypotheticals because you can't accept the basic fact that EWR is simply not capable of supporting the volume and type of traffic that UA runs through it.
There is alot that could be said about UA but the issue is the airport and how UA uses it.
Feel free to let us know what other large hub airports have had similar issues related to volume and runway placement.
@Tim ... DCA , duh .
no, DCA was not related to runway placement.
It was related to helicopter traffic operating in too close of a vicinity to airliner traffic.
EWR is one of the oldest airports in the country and has been rebuilt multiple times.
there were several accidents in the pre-jet era that involved aircraft crashing into the city of Elizabeth
Those that suggest that another runway could be built west of the current airport facilities clearly...
no, DCA was not related to runway placement.
It was related to helicopter traffic operating in too close of a vicinity to airliner traffic.
EWR is one of the oldest airports in the country and has been rebuilt multiple times.
there were several accidents in the pre-jet era that involved aircraft crashing into the city of Elizabeth
Those that suggest that another runway could be built west of the current airport facilities clearly haven't looked at a map to see that the south end of that "proposed" runway would go right over very congested airspace and the city of Elizabeth.
There is a snowball's chance in you know where of a runway being built there.
EWR is simply not designed for the type and volume of traffic that goes through it
the FAA will ultimately make the decision but widebodies on 29 is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully we don't have to see what happened at DCA for them to act.
I am not an expert in these things - but what would happen if above the Highway, the pilot decides / is forced to have a go-around? I could imagine that the force from the engine could be dangerous to vehicles, especially empty / lightly loaded trucks...
I follow Captain Steeeve on YouTube and find his perspectives humorous, but many times, valuable. His recent video on this incident offers useful thoughts as to how to address this.
I follow Juan Browne, who makes fun of Steeve's fake uniform.
Some of these "recommendations" from people here really have no grounding in reality or have actually driven to/near Newark or even looked at a map.
EWR has a complex system of highways that are critical freight corridors. The largest and most important marine port is on the other side. And some of the busiest rail freight traffic and busiest passenger rail corridor is on the other side. It's not a coincidence that these all have...
Some of these "recommendations" from people here really have no grounding in reality or have actually driven to/near Newark or even looked at a map.
EWR has a complex system of highways that are critical freight corridors. The largest and most important marine port is on the other side. And some of the busiest rail freight traffic and busiest passenger rail corridor is on the other side. It's not a coincidence that these all have grown up together.
No, the Turnpike can't be buried, neither can 78 or 1/9. The runway can't be raised in height (seriously???). JFK is busy as it is, and LGA is not much better from a runway design perspective, and no rail connectivity. And neither could LGA be expanded (look at a map). And no one even mention Stewart or HPN as any kind of viable alternative.
Any permanent solution you'd be talking about a $50-100 billion price tag, and 30+ years to make it happen. By that time, TD and 1990 will be sitting in a retirement home talking about the good ol' days of when they were younger and people would actually listen to them, albeit reluctantly. At least they can blame it on old age at that point.
Putting I-95 into tunnel for about a 6km stretch should do it. It would also create a swathe of land where the freeway used to be that could be sold to developers to help pay for it. The runway could also be extended about 200m as well which would ease landing in widebodies. As the tunnel can be constructed before closing the existing freeway it should minimize disruption to freeway users.
With all respect, if you sell the newly available parcel of land to a developer, what is he/she going to develop? Severe height restrictions would exist, as in shorter than a light pole. How does that solve anything? That said, why are light poles even necessary for a half mile stretch? Lastly, if you bury the interstate and then extend the runway, you're right back where you started.
I don’t really care about EWR, I’m much more interested in what is being done about all the openly racist comments allowed to stay on the blog?
Great question, Tim.
The blog owner claimed that there would be zero tolerance for this crap, but the blog owner seems to be MIA when this garbage appears.
You're right, he seems to be in MIA alot (/snark). But to your point, I agree the crap needs to stop.
He doesn’t care. All engagement is good engagement. Smh
I agree, Tim. Ben's priorities are suspect. And, as I've said before, if you actually read the slop comments from the half dozen or so worst offenders, you really only have yourself to blame. It took me a while to self-censor, but I can now easily skim right past the awful comments from the basement dwellers.
No more constructions on turnpike!!
You can shut down runway 29 but leave turnpike alone!!!
"They need to purchase the Anenheuser Bush plant."
Interestingly, AB is closing that brewery and the government should use eminent domain to acquire that and the land required to make a parallel runway to the west of the terminals. An overhead of EWR makes it obvious where such a runway should go. I think there is a cemetery that might have to be moved which is never easy.
That is the long term remedy,...
"They need to purchase the Anenheuser Bush plant."
Interestingly, AB is closing that brewery and the government should use eminent domain to acquire that and the land required to make a parallel runway to the west of the terminals. An overhead of EWR makes it obvious where such a runway should go. I think there is a cemetery that might have to be moved which is never easy.
That is the long term remedy, but this is a relatively isolated incident. The overreactions are as predictable as they are ill-informed.
even getting enough land doesn't mean that a runway will ever be approved. The chances of a new runway being built in any coastal state are somewhere between slim and none
A 3rd parallel runway on the west side of EWR would have flight paths over both downtown Newark’s high rises (with more getting built) and Elizabeth neighborhoods where there are long memories of three bad plane crashes in two months in the early 1950’s. It would never be approved.
One has to admit total ignorance in regard to the subject airport and the challenges associated with it.
Might one propose a Hong Kong type solution …. Build a new super coastal Airport and then downgrade Newark?
As an alternative in the short term, appropriately train and certify the Pilots who need to land there?
Just thinking out loud here with a few decades of aviation experience under my belt, all be...
One has to admit total ignorance in regard to the subject airport and the challenges associated with it.
Might one propose a Hong Kong type solution …. Build a new super coastal Airport and then downgrade Newark?
As an alternative in the short term, appropriately train and certify the Pilots who need to land there?
Just thinking out loud here with a few decades of aviation experience under my belt, all be it Military Aviation. (Unlike many of the Walter’s who post herein).
so you are happy to arrogantly tout your aviation experience but you can't fathom that others might have some but just don't brag about it.
and, if you served on the other side of the pond, let us know how many of your landings were at civilian commercial airports in the US - which makes your opinions worth as much or little as everyone else's
Hello Walter Mitty, say again all after zdsxkyr posh denuyt
Actually, you're correct on most of this, Mr. Aero. The third runway suggestion noted above by another commenter doesn't solve the crosswind issue. Hong Kong is a decent example of the long-term solution, but there are others, right? Malpensa? Denver? Meantime, there are other major airports that manage to make two runways work, i.e. Heathrow (I know, I know ... the delays, holding patterns, etc.). Nobody wants to use far away Islip or Stewart. If...
Actually, you're correct on most of this, Mr. Aero. The third runway suggestion noted above by another commenter doesn't solve the crosswind issue. Hong Kong is a decent example of the long-term solution, but there are others, right? Malpensa? Denver? Meantime, there are other major airports that manage to make two runways work, i.e. Heathrow (I know, I know ... the delays, holding patterns, etc.). Nobody wants to use far away Islip or Stewart. If it were easy, they already would have done it.
As an civil/traffic engineer, I will comment that tunneling or closing I-95 is not viable. The other engineering solution would be to tunnel Brewster Rd & Spring St on the west end of RWY 11 (I caution, there's no guarantee this is geotechnically feasible). However this will be very expensive and cause massive inconvenience during construction just to gain about 300' of runway.
There is precedent. How long was the runway extension in Fort Lauderdale over roadway and railroad? And what’s the level change there?
Again, people here with the maturity level of a three year old and an IQ of 70. Ban the cars! Close the freeway! But of course because the food magically appears on the store shelves. Ditto the medicines at the hospitals and clinics.
As far as this situation, probably nothing. There's nowhere to go. Like DCA it will always be a challenging airport.
"safety is paramount" is something we say only until it becomes time to make short-term sacrifices for long-term improvement, especially when it comes to infrastructure
This seems to be a wild overreaction to one almost certainly pilot error near miss.
That runway has been used for decades when winds require it, and by wide bodies.
100 pts to you, @Daniel.
Good point. United’s has some very junior pilots, based out of EWR, and some of them are flying widebodies. It’s pretty common, on transatlantic trips, for the captain to fly the leg over and the F/O to fly the return leg. You easily could have had a junior F/O flying a challenging visual approach to rwy 29, maybe for the first time, and just getting a little low. Of course I could also see a...
Good point. United’s has some very junior pilots, based out of EWR, and some of them are flying widebodies. It’s pretty common, on transatlantic trips, for the captain to fly the leg over and the F/O to fly the return leg. You easily could have had a junior F/O flying a challenging visual approach to rwy 29, maybe for the first time, and just getting a little low. Of course I could also see a scenario where a chief pilot was trying to stay current and did the same thing. Either way I wouldn’t overreact until more information is made available.
Put I-95, Route 9, Spring St & Brewster Rd underground (Tunnel) and lengthen runway. Potential runway length could be improved to about 8,100 feet. Getting the money, who would pay & the approval for the project the stumbling blocks.
You have zero technical basis to advocate restricting wide-bodies.
Ben isn't filing a notice to the public of changes that will be made. He is making suggestions of what might need to be done and multiple people recognize he might be on track.
The FAA will decide; it is their job to dictate how aviation is done in the US and they might act to restrict operations just as they did at DCA.
Hopefully no one gets killed at EWR before they act.
This dude can’t live with the reality that Delta isn’t the only airline in the world. Constantly making suggestions to curb UA operations! He is insufferable and brings nothing to the conversation.
wow... don't knock yourself out jumping to conclusions.
If there is a Delta connection to this story - which I have not made - then it is that LGA and JFK as split hubs really do make far more sense than a single hub at EWR; JFK has more and longer runways while LGA is even more operationally challenging than EWR.
Tax the billionaires would solve the problem. Maybe a yearly 5% wealth tax. If not enough, extend the tax to more people
United and the airport should set aside a billion or so dollars to settle the lawsuits when there is a crash. And there will be a crash.
Bans cars. Shut the freeway.
What an ignorant comment. Turnpike is toll road, not freeway.
I flew that approach to 29 before there was any VNAV approach to it. That was pure visual. The "gouge" was to be at about 750 feet at the bridge and aim for the numbers.
But now, there is a VNAV procedure that does all the work. The approach creates a descent path to the runway and the pilot can follow the aircraft flight director. Yes, it's always going to be windy when you...
I flew that approach to 29 before there was any VNAV approach to it. That was pure visual. The "gouge" was to be at about 750 feet at the bridge and aim for the numbers.
But now, there is a VNAV procedure that does all the work. The approach creates a descent path to the runway and the pilot can follow the aircraft flight director. Yes, it's always going to be windy when you land on 29, and they should modify the approach area of that runway (how? the highway is right there). But the triple 7 has bigger brakes and a slower approach speed than the smaller 737-800. This guy was too low.
Spot on Arrow, if the aircraft was at a safe altitude no incident would have occurred.
Would many of today’s pilots have managed the checkerboard turn and drop onto Kai Tak Airport in hurricane season?
800 feet over the bridge was my gouge, but 750 feet obviously is workable. It souldn't be a problem except for the nervous or inexperienced.
That runway its too short 6,700 feet he should have said unable to land there and use the longer runway.
How many feet is long enough? How did you arrive at that number?
6700 feet is fine for a 767 even at MLW. They could not use the parallels because they were out of limits for the wind.
(Maybe, hear me out, no widebodies on that particular short runway...)
I'm being told that United 'owns' Newark, and they will not cut capacity, so no can do.
Eyy, marone! Get this guy some gabagool!
They should elevate the runway 150 feet. That will create more clearance over the highway during approach. Plus, it will save on fuel cost since the planes won't have to climb as much during takeoff. Win-win!
Nothing needs to be done. The Stadium Visual 29 at EWR has been used for many years without incident, generally when crosswinds on the 22s are high. This was pilot error all the way- they were not monitoring the PAPI nor observing visual clues indicating they were too low.
given that there are multiple other documented incidents of the same type of thing happening, the FAA either needs to come to the conclusion that the approach as they designed is not safe.
since part of the reason for changing the approach was to increase capacity, even if they change back or add other requirements, the capacity could still be reduced.
Pilot error happens. Safety margins have to be built to allow for that...
given that there are multiple other documented incidents of the same type of thing happening, the FAA either needs to come to the conclusion that the approach as they designed is not safe.
since part of the reason for changing the approach was to increase capacity, even if they change back or add other requirements, the capacity could still be reduced.
Pilot error happens. Safety margins have to be built to allow for that possibility. The RNAV approach to 29 just doesn't have the safety margins to ensure that even being just a little too low doesn't create a disaster.
Eventually, rebuilding the freeway might be possible - but maybe it can't be done and EWR traffic just has to live w/ the current runway layout through tighter restrictions
Ok Mr Dunn, I will bite!
What are your aeronautical qualifications which might add gravitas to your post?
Are you or have you ever been any sort of qualified pilot?
Have you ever worked in an airside capacity?
What is your work expedience in civil aviation?
Without full disclosure of your status, why should any reader believe anything which you post?
Your future silence on these issues will help to determine if you deserve the name of Mr Walter Mitty or not …. Yes?
your sniff test is bogus whether I have aeronautical qualifications or not
I don't think Ben is a pilot but he accurately reads the situation which is pretty obvious for anyone w/ a modicum of common sense and data to understand.
how about you tell us how to fix this problem which has happened multiple times?
trying to shoot the messenger always takes second place to actually identifying and fixing the problem = and you...
your sniff test is bogus whether I have aeronautical qualifications or not
I don't think Ben is a pilot but he accurately reads the situation which is pretty obvious for anyone w/ a modicum of common sense and data to understand.
how about you tell us how to fix this problem which has happened multiple times?
trying to shoot the messenger always takes second place to actually identifying and fixing the problem = and you fall way short in that regard in this conversation.
i love when TD and british TD are fighting. cracks me up
Harold, please stay tuned as I have only just put a couple of rounds into the butts to warm the barrel. Your entertainment value may improve substantially if Walter Mitty-Dunn cares to duel with this old pugilist.
@Harold, this is what it sounds like when the doves cry...
Well now, as suspected, you have failed your very own “Sniff Test” Mr Walter Mitty.
No aeronautical experience, now there is a surprise! The ability to read and regurgitate (badly) the information provided by others hardly makes one want to take your posts seriously, now does it Walter.
You sidestepped the questions by introducing Ben into your argument. However, you conveniently forget that Ben’s words actually have gravitas. He has been there, done that and...
Well now, as suspected, you have failed your very own “Sniff Test” Mr Walter Mitty.
No aeronautical experience, now there is a surprise! The ability to read and regurgitate (badly) the information provided by others hardly makes one want to take your posts seriously, now does it Walter.
You sidestepped the questions by introducing Ben into your argument. However, you conveniently forget that Ben’s words actually have gravitas. He has been there, done that and therefore can speak from experience. You on the other hand display no such traits Walter.
Have you even been known to set foot on board a real aircraft? Perhaps the odd cattle class flight onboard a Delta Airliner, yes?
Seriously now Walter, as a messenger, your messages carry no weight with me old bean. Come back to the party when you gain a comprehensive insight into the subject.
To Ben, please accept my sincere apologies if you loose clicks because I have just ‘shot’ the messenger Mr Walter Mitty-Dunn.
I have played on aviation social media to know that two things are consistently true
1. People consistently have no idea who other people are and make assumptions that are almost always wrong.
2. When people can't address issues, they attack the messenger.
Multiple people here and elsewhere recognize that EWR is just not suitable for the size and type of operation UA runs there.
Kirby himself has said he wants to...
I have played on aviation social media to know that two things are consistently true
1. People consistently have no idea who other people are and make assumptions that are almost always wrong.
2. When people can't address issues, they attack the messenger.
Multiple people here and elsewhere recognize that EWR is just not suitable for the size and type of operation UA runs there.
Kirby himself has said he wants to run even more widebodies through there which will reduce capacity since widebodies require more airspace than narrowbodies.
Sometimes you just have to admit that limitations need to be put in place for the greater good - which is not necessarily what is good for UA but, in this case, all of NJ and the areas that surround EWR.
Thank you Walter Mitty, I rest my case. A confirmed nobody who has achieved absolutely nothing in aviation.
People like you are not worthy of my time or even the minuscule effort it takes to respond to your posts. As insignificant as you are Walter, one is compelled to feel sorry for your sad soul.
“Roger and out to you” ….
since you have decided that you have the credentials and no one else does, then please leave. You offer no benefit other than hearing your own self.
It seems the runway is absolutely necessary. So put the freeway underground. That should buy a lot of extra distance. Expensive? You bet. Worth it? Depends how badly the airport needs to land big planes on that runway. The easy way to find out is for the FAA to add plane restrictions on that runway
Nothing, probably.
thank you for echoing what I have said
"investigators should look into whether restrictions should at least be placed on wide bodies landing there. Yes, pilots manage to safely land here day in and day out, but the safety margins just might not be there."
EWR is simply not capable of handling the volume and type of traffic that UA pushes through its highest revenue hub.
Narrowbodies and RJs can very likely land...
thank you for echoing what I have said
"investigators should look into whether restrictions should at least be placed on wide bodies landing there. Yes, pilots manage to safely land here day in and day out, but the safety margins just might not be there."
EWR is simply not capable of handling the volume and type of traffic that UA pushes through its highest revenue hub.
Narrowbodies and RJs can very likely land safety there; widebodies not so much.
Having 30 plus widebody arrivals/hour at certain times of day is just too much and forces the use of 29.
"thank you for echoing what I have said"
You never said squat. You're just taking Ben's insights and claiming credit for them, something gaslighters always do.
as usual, it is you that blab first at the expense of gathering facts.
In Ben's article about the incident that starts with the title "Yikes..."
I said
"Easy fix. Just cut EWR capacity further.
No widebody landings on 29
the airport was never designed for the operation that UA is trying to push through it"
and then said it several times in other comments.
I know the UA fan club and Scott Kirby...
as usual, it is you that blab first at the expense of gathering facts.
In Ben's article about the incident that starts with the title "Yikes..."
I said
"Easy fix. Just cut EWR capacity further.
No widebody landings on 29
the airport was never designed for the operation that UA is trying to push through it"
and then said it several times in other comments.
I know the UA fan club and Scott Kirby have cardiologists on standby but there is the real possibility that the FAA will recommend what I and be have said should be done for safety - restrict 29 arrivals to non-widebodies.
Yes, there are instrument landing systems on that runway that should have indicated that the flight was too low but the margin for error is not enough on a runway where there is an urge to get the plane on the runway at the first opportunity because the runway length is so short.
I consistently recognize solutions and reality which you and others don't want to admit. We get it.
in this case, it is just not personal.
It is simply reality that EWR was never capable of handling the amount of traffic that CO pushed through it.
UA has increased what CO did by adding more widebodies
All of those that tout how great UA's share in NYC is and how having a single hub at EWR is such a masterstroke might find out that they are simply wrong if the FAA makes the prudent decision to restrict the type of aircraft that can land on 29.
@Tim, you are 100% transparent. Just admit you are recommending restrictions at EWR because it disproportionately hurts United. If DL had a hub at EWR, you'd be singing a different tune.
Fact is, the airport has been operating with its current runway configuration for over 50 years, without incident.
There's nothing to see here.
Thank you Mr Mitty …. You ‘dun’ it again Walter …. added your click to Ben’s tally …. :-)
I agree with Tim, cut capacity at EWR, give United half of Delta’s gates at JFK to maintain balance in the NYC airport system, then they can both have 2 co-terminal hubs as the 2 leaders in NYC.
We can also kick out the Skyteam airlines out of EWR that have no business flying there anymore, like SAS. And also limit Delta’s 717 flying there as it’s just an inefficient use of slots (tbh...
I agree with Tim, cut capacity at EWR, give United half of Delta’s gates at JFK to maintain balance in the NYC airport system, then they can both have 2 co-terminal hubs as the 2 leaders in NYC.
We can also kick out the Skyteam airlines out of EWR that have no business flying there anymore, like SAS. And also limit Delta’s 717 flying there as it’s just an inefficient use of slots (tbh Delta should just be banned from using 717s and A220s in NYC airports) - they are clearly using smaller aircraft to hoard slots. Obviously regional aircraft are small too so there can be restrictions on all airlines to cap the number of regional aircraft but this game of hoarding slots by using sub-size aircraft that even Delta struggles to fill sometimes is a joke.
But I agree with Tim for once, reduce the overall capacity but then split the impact across all the airlines,
Capacity didn't force the use of Rwy 29 in this case - the winds did. No widebody pilot would take Rwy 29, at 6,725' long, a curving approach path to a short final, and no ILS, over Rwy 4R/22L (9,999' long) with a long, straight-in ILS approach unless they absolutely had to. Occasionally an aircraft's maximum certified crosswind or tailwind component is exceeded and Rwy 29 becomes the only runway that can be used.
Your...
Capacity didn't force the use of Rwy 29 in this case - the winds did. No widebody pilot would take Rwy 29, at 6,725' long, a curving approach path to a short final, and no ILS, over Rwy 4R/22L (9,999' long) with a long, straight-in ILS approach unless they absolutely had to. Occasionally an aircraft's maximum certified crosswind or tailwind component is exceeded and Rwy 29 becomes the only runway that can be used.
Your assertions are contradictory, Tim. You acknowledge that the FAA has placed restrictions on the airport (which they have) but then claim UA is pushing more traffic through the airport than it can handle. Both cannot be true.
It would appear that the experience of those who know, confirms the inexperience of Mr Walter Mitty-Dunn.
Can you cite your sources, Tim?
In another thread, you say “multiple other documented incidents on runway 29.” Documented where? Twitter phone videos are not a verifiable source of an incident or near miss, so where can we find the FAA data on this?
In this thread you say 30 widebody arrivals per hour - United is operating what appears to be 47 daily widebody flights on the current schedule. Looks like there’s 19 other...
Can you cite your sources, Tim?
In another thread, you say “multiple other documented incidents on runway 29.” Documented where? Twitter phone videos are not a verifiable source of an incident or near miss, so where can we find the FAA data on this?
In this thread you say 30 widebody arrivals per hour - United is operating what appears to be 47 daily widebody flights on the current schedule. Looks like there’s 19 other widebody flights on passenger carriers so ~66 widebody plus whatever cargo operations per day. What hours of the day are scheduled at >30 widebody landings per hour?
really?
the pictures of low flying widebodies don't meet your standards of evidence so they were just made up?
and if we take your volume of widebodies as evidence, then why are then even using widebodies on 29 at all?
If it is so inconsequential, then my original suggestion (which Ben echoed) should indeed be easy to implement.
No widebody operations on 29 - and 11 isnt much better
Photos of a jet that is “low” can be impacted by zoom, perspective, stability of the camera, and so on… so yeah I’d say it’s fair to not use that as hard evidence that something is obviously or inherently unsafe.
And thanks for making my point.
Tim, I’m a pilot with a certain global airline which you are harping on here. I have also flown widebody aircraft into/out of EWR.
You are not a pilot, nor an aeronautical engineer.
This might surprise you, but many widebody aircraft have slower final approach speeds *and* more/better braking systems than narrowbody aircraft such as the B-737-800/900ER. The B-777 is a particularly good example, and one which I have flown into EWR RWY...
Tim, I’m a pilot with a certain global airline which you are harping on here. I have also flown widebody aircraft into/out of EWR.
You are not a pilot, nor an aeronautical engineer.
This might surprise you, but many widebody aircraft have slower final approach speeds *and* more/better braking systems than narrowbody aircraft such as the B-737-800/900ER. The B-777 is a particularly good example, and one which I have flown into EWR RWY 29. Slower approach speeds + more braking capabilities (12 wheels w/brakes vs. 4 wheels on most narrowbodies) = well-suited for landings like this, as long as, like always, the aircraft is flown with precision.
We shall let the investigative process into this accident conclude before we cast any aspersions about EWR’s challenges and deficiencies. No need for you to act like you have every solution to every issue facing commercial aviation, especially when you have zero bonafides.
Newark is a mess of an airport. Caps on arrivals and departures may have helped improve its on-time performance a bit, but the airport is prone to weather delays and has an unforgiving layout that when at full schedule, results in delays because so many aircraft need to be ferried around the field to get to their gates. The airport was a backwater until the arrival of PeoplExpress, and since PE was folded into Texas...
Newark is a mess of an airport. Caps on arrivals and departures may have helped improve its on-time performance a bit, but the airport is prone to weather delays and has an unforgiving layout that when at full schedule, results in delays because so many aircraft need to be ferried around the field to get to their gates. The airport was a backwater until the arrival of PeoplExpress, and since PE was folded into Texas Air/Continental in 1986, it grew to become a major hub, with an enviable network but there's little to nothing that can be done to ameliorate what has to be one of America's worst airports. Development and highways surround it. The airspace is shared with the area's other big airports.
The Walter Mitty’s will be out in force very soon Ben, a high click count can be guaranteed …. :-)
'I don't think that's a por-poze...'
(Have you even seen the 2013 movie with Ben Stiller? It's actually really good. No, I'm not referencing The New Yorker from 1939 or the book in 1942 or the film in 1947...)
1990, I’m being very slow to catch up with you today.
If you are referring to the Walter Mitty film, no, I have not seen it. Should I bother?