Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Monday, October 22, 2021

In an effort to ease the chronic delays at New York’s chronically-congested three international airports, governmental authorities are cooking up a plan for a voluntary scale-back of the volume of flights in and out of the metropolitan area.

I’m curious: I see no mention in this planning of the role of Stewart International Airport, which is slated by the Port Authority of NY/NJ to become the region’s fourth major airport.

In fact, the Port Authority is taking Stewart under its operational umbrella (effective November 1) specifically to take the overflow of air traffic from the three airports to its south. So if that’s the plan, why bother with this reduction plan? Is it strictly a short-term move, until Stewart is up to speed in its safety-valve role?

Of course, I’m of the belief that Stewart’s never going to see a bunch of passenger flights diverted its way from Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark. The Orange County airfield, owing to its location near interstate crossroads, makes more sense as a destination for much of the air-cargo flights that now head into the boroughs and New Jersey; that would free up plenty of gates for passengers closer to Manhattan.

by Costa Tsiokos, Mon 10/22/2007 10:57:01 PM
Category: Business, New Yorkin'
| Permalink | Trackback |

2 Feedbacks »
  1. Islip only seems to be getting busier as well. Honestly, fewer flights won’t work as people keep traveling no matter what.

    They need to double up the airports here. Expand Stewart and Islip to take care of populations there, and add another airport in NJ.

    If train prices weren’t ridiculous they might be able to cut down on short flights, but when the price of tickets are the same airports will continue to be crowded.

    Comment by David — 10/23/2007 @ 03:18:45 AM

  2. Further details on this in today’s NYTimes, specifically on JFK. Apparently plans call for congestion-like surcharges to discourage people buying tickets, although they’d be so nominal (a couple of dollars extra per passenger fare) that they won’t have any effect.

    Trains would be an ideal solution, except that the passenger-revenue model there hasn’t made sense in at least 50 years — so Amtrak would need even heavier subsidies than it’s been getting.

    Comment by CT — 10/23/2007 @ 10:09:42 PM

RSS feed for feedback on this post.

Leave a comment


PLEASE NOTE: Various types of comment moderation may be triggered once you hit the "Say It!" button below. Common causes for this are the inclusion of several hyperlinks and/or spam words in the comment field. Please do not hit the "Say It!" button more than once. If you feel your comment is being blocked without cause, feel free to email me about it.