Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded  
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

"And we will do everything we can to ensure that we remain the principle obstacle to airline operations" the FAA added Silly

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4635048.html


E pur si muove -Galileo
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2455 times:

"Delays are mounting due to congested airspace and congested airports," said FAA administrator Marion Blakey.

Is anyone really surprised by this?

I'd like to see someone suggest some solutions, other than to build more airports. Yes, we need more airports, but the "NIMBY" lobby isn't going to let that happen. Any ideas?



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
Any ideas?

Bigger aircraft!!!


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2385 times:

"To pay for a new system that would rely on satellite-based navigation, the FAA proposes to replace the ticket tax now paid by airline passengers with a combination of fees and taxes. That would force people who fly corporate jets to bear more of the cost of the air traffic control system."



This is just screaming so they can have user fees. The FAA has been lobbied real hard by the airlines to have fees instead of taxes on tickets and fuel. AOPA is fighting this real hard. As a GA pilot, I am against this.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Bigger aircraft!!!

Not necessarily larger aircraft than are currently in service, but rather fewer small aircraft. Which means we need to see more instances of one A320 or 737-800 producing the same seat miles as 2-3 regional jets. Instead, the trend in the U.S., which the legacy airlines continue to pursue, is in the opposite direction, which is yet another sympton indicative of the acute foot-in-mouth disease afflicting the U.S. legacies. While the legacies themselves clog airports and airways with multiple movements replacing one movement, multiplied by hundreds, if not thousands, each and every day and growing -- even on some of the more major high-density routes -- they complain about the "unacceptable" state to which they contribute heavily.

In typical fashion, the U.S. legacies create a scapegoat for the consequences of their own actions, in this case the FAA. There is a finite amount of airspace that no one can expand, including the FAA, a fact that the U.S. legacies conveniently overlook in their shallow attempts to deflect the blame for a condition caused by choices made by the same U.S. legacies who complain the most. One way to grow both airport facilities and airspace while expanding neither is to make more productive use of the same by moving as many pax as many miles with one A319/320/321 or 737/757 replacing 2-3 regional jets -- even if only on routes for which RJs were not envisioned at the time of their debut. There are many hundreds, if not thousands of daily flight ops where this can be done without unduly effecting the interests of pax and airlines.


User currently offlineOkie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Bigger aircraft!!!

this will really be the only answer. As airspace gets more congested, aircraft will have to increase in size if airlines want to move more passengers.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8974 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

Quoting Okie73 (Reply 5):
Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Bigger aircraft!!!

this will really be the only answer. As airspace gets more congested, aircraft will have to increase in size if airlines want to move more passengers.

More point to point instead of many connecting here and there might be better. The big aircraft today is a medium aircraft tomorrow, and so on. . . while the number of pax keeps increasing.

Quote:
To pay for a new system that would rely on satellite-based navigation, the FAA proposes to replace the ticket tax now paid by airline passengers with a combination of fees and taxes. That would force people who fly corporate jets to bear more of the cost of the air traffic control system.

Is that the GPS system people have mentioned here in A.net? Can anyone explain the differences between the current system and the proposed GPS system? Thanks in advance!

Also, do GA not pay anything for the use of ATC systems?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
Any ideas?

How 'bout just fixing the @#(*&#@) ATC system?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineNW748i From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 362 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):
Also, do GA not pay anything for the use of ATC systems?

This was discussed at the conference: FAA Forecast Conference: Tilton, Mayerhuber, Et Al (by NW748i Mar 16 2007 in Civil Aviation)

To answer your question, yes they do pay for part of the bill. However, it is not a fair part. Paying for only about 4% while using some 32% presents a notable disconnect.



Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1940 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

I agree, Get rid of the needless frequent flights with Regional Jets......They are the things that are clogging the system.
The legacy airlines still believe that we are living in the immediate post 9/11 era and that they dont need the full size airliners in the shorter haul markets. Their wisdom is costing them more by aggrevating frequent flyers by over booking the baby jets. In a lot of cases they think that running 6-8 Regional Jets rather than perhaps just 4 flights with a 737/A320 size plane is the better alternative. It might give passengers more choices but at what other expenses? Added Fuel costs, Extra crews, overbooked flights resulting in DBC vouchers and most of all, delays after delays at busy airports.
An example, is Saginaw, Mi. United used to fly 4 times per day to OHare with either 737s. Now they somehow ever since 9/11 seem to have thought that the reducing those planes to CRJ-200 size and increase the service to 6 flights per day. If you figure each 737 at 125 passengers each x 4 = 500 seats per day versus 6 CRJ-200's @ 50 seats x 6=300....Hello 200 seats have been eliminated...Another 2 more arrival slots at O'Hare are needed with a loss of 200 seats that once availabel with larger aircraft. Does Saginaw need 6 CRJs to ORD vs 4 737s???? Its a bad business practice especially when you think that they (United) and American are doing this same thing all over the place.....as are other legacy carriers in other airline hubs.....And we wonder why the ATC system is clogged up???

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting NW748i (Reply 8):
To answer your question, yes they do pay for part of the bill. However, it is not a fair part. Paying for only about 4% while using some 32% presents a notable disconnect.

Do you have a link? Im a GA pilot but as far as using the atc system, I only use it when I am required by FAA regs---class "c" airspace. I have filed flight plans, but I also pay gas tax.

The whole user fees thing is just so airlines can make more money---taxes go down but fares do not.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 9):
Does Saginaw need 6 CRJs to ORD vs 4 737s???? Its a bad business practice especially when you think that they (United) and American are doing this same thing all over the place.....as are other legacy carriers in other airline hubs.....And we wonder why the ATC system is clogged up???

It's not an easy problem to fix in the context of a free market. Blame the RJs for it if you like, but the travelling public seems to like having six flights a day instead of four because it gives them more choices. On highly competitive routes, the airline that bites the bullet, ditches the RJs, and goes bigger planes and fewer frequencies might find itself with lower costs, but with a significantly reduced market share as more people go for the competitor's time slot -- the one you just abandoned. Your bigger planes might have fewer people on them. A significant contributing factor, in my opinion, is the wide discrepancy between mainline and RJ salary levels for flight crews and the corresponding scope clauses that put restrictions on an airlines ability to move to 70-100 seat planes from the 50-seaters. Like I said, it's not a simple problem.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineOkie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
Blame the RJs for it if you like, but the travelling public seems to like having six flights a day instead of four because it gives them more choices.

of course they do. Heck, the traveling public would like to have flights every hour to every destination, so they can go exactly when they want to go. But you can take it too far.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
Your bigger planes might have fewer people on them. A significant contributing factor, in my opinion, is the wide discrepancy between mainline and RJ salary levels for flight crews and the corresponding scope clauses that put restrictions on an airlines ability to move to 70-100 seat planes from the 50-seaters.

The discrepency between mainline and regional salary levels is gone. Yes, mainline crews make more than regional crews. But, they fly bigger airccraft. So when you break it down on a CASM basis, regional crews are more expensive. So, even looking at the crews, it would be cheaper for Delta, for example, to move 300 people with 2 738s than it would be to use 6 RJ50s.

[Edited 2007-03-16 20:36:22]

User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 9):
Does Saginaw need 6 CRJs to ORD vs 4 737s???? Its a bad business practice especially when you think that they (United) and American are doing this same thing all over the place.....as are other legacy carriers in other airline hubs.....And we wonder why the ATC system is clogged up???

Evidently you were never a very frequent flyer. A couple of years ago I was working for a consulting firm and logged 100 air segment in approximately 9 month. Each additional hour that I could spend at home was important. I when booking my reservations I typically choose the airline with the most frequency. Why? Here is an example. I commuted a lot between Chicago and Washington, DC. I typically used United which had 14-15 daily frequencies. (American had a similar amount of daily frequencies). This large number of frequencies allowed me to take an earlier flight if my meeting finished earlier in the day or a later flight if the meeting ran late. I once tried ATA which had 5 daily frequencies at that time. On my return flight there was a mechanical which forced us to wait for the next flight which was three hours later. While waiting for the next flight I counted 3 United flights on their way to Chicago. I never took ATA again while making that Chicago to DC commute. Airlines add frequency because their best customers want frequency.


User currently offlineNW748i From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 362 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 10):
Do you have a link?

From ATA: http://www.airlines.org/news/releases/2007/statement_12-14-07.htm
From FAA: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8147

You might also consult the several reports on the Reauth presented by G. Dillingham at GAO.



Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
User currently offline5mileBob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

,reply=7][/quote

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
How 'bout just fixing the @#(*&#@) ATC system?

I hear this a lot, but I never hear solutions.

Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
I'd like to see someone suggest some solutions, other than to build more airports. Yes, we need more airports, but the "NIMBY" lobby isn't going to let that happen. Any ideas?

Concrete does a lot for delays. For years, there were 10-30 minute delays at MSP 4-5 times a day during normal operations. Once 17/35 opened up, delays have gone down to next to nothing. The major local airline in charge, however, still says that delays are up. However, these delays are due to the aircraft landing sooner and gate space is unavailable.



Still looks like a Ramp Rat
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

There have been some good suggestions posted in this thread. I'd like to add mine, some of which have already been mentioned:

1. I agree completely that there are way too many RJ flights. I want to see the smaller cities get air service, but I think the airlines have gotten carried away.

2. Without question there are improvements needed in the ATC system, too numerous to list here.

3. The FAA should allow "free flight", point-to-point navigation using GPS that may no necessarily follow established navigation airways..

4. We desperately need new airports, especially imo in the Chicago and LA areas.

5. We need people in the FAA, and civil aviation in general, who can think "outside the box". We need to stop thinking of aviation in conventional terms and come up with some new ideas. One example is somthing I've thought about: Build an airport in the Stroud, OK, area (about in the middle of the state) and put in high speed rail directly from the airport to Tulsa and Oklahoma City. TUL and OKC could then be devoted to GA. The train could have pax in downtowns of either city in about an hour. I've always thought something like this could work for the LA area.

6. Airlines need to deep six the idea that 7:00AM is the prime time for departing to anywhere and the idea that 5:00PM is the ideal time to arrive anywhere. Flights should be spread out through the day and - when possible - through the night.

These are just a few ideas, many of you may have better ones. The trick, I believe, is for all of us to tell our elected leaders what we think. Eventually we may see some progress.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 16):
2. Without question there are improvements needed in the ATC system, too numerous to list here.

As a controller, I am curious what some of your improvements would be?

Quoting Contrails (Reply 16):
3. The FAA should allow "free flight", point-to-point navigation using GPS that may no necessarily follow established navigation airways..

I don't see how Free Flight can work east of the Mississippi.



"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 17):
As a controller, I am curious what some of your improvements would be?

An "antiquated ATC system" has become the favorite strawman culprit for the U.S. legacy airlines in pursuing their pipedream that there is a "magic ATC cure" for dealing with the congestion the legacies have created by their own choices while refusing to take responsible action on their part to mitigate congestion. There is no cure, "magic" or real, for reducing congestion while the legacies continue their love affair with irresponsibly excessive aircraft movements (read RJs in place of 120-150 pax types on routes where the latter can be regularly filled at totally adequate, albeit fewer, frequencies) and unrealistic "all-at-once" scheduling of arrivals and departures at hub airports.

As much as the U.S. legacies seem (by their words and actions) to believe themselves to be entitled to push the envelope to the point of constantly attempting to exceed the envelope of current airport and ATC infrastructure capacity, who's to say they would not soon be doing more of the very same if the improvements of their pipedreams were to happen? While the legacies, of course, as is their habit, would continue to blame everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences of the legacies' own actions.

[Edited 2007-03-18 03:42:49]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USAToday: MSY To Get More Seats In December posted Fri Aug 11 2006 23:59:16 by MSYtristar
CO To Get More Postal Revenue? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 18:04:08 by CLE757
SAS Braathens To Get More 737, Two W/ Winglets posted Thu Jun 15 2006 23:41:33 by OyKIE
Orlando To Get More JetBlue? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 01:09:05 by AkjetBlue
Air Madrid To Get More Aircraft? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 22:00:02 by AlitaliaMD11
A-I To Get More Planes For More Flights To US posted Wed Jun 26 2002 17:53:59 by Jaysit
AeroLitoral To Get More Saab 340Bs posted Wed Feb 20 2002 01:48:06 by Alvaro
SSV To Get More A320? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 23:19:18 by Airtime
Dalavia To Get 6 More Tu-214s posted Thu Aug 23 2001 07:46:20 by Aviatsiya
Garuda And Air China To Get More 737NG. posted Fri Jun 8 2001 23:06:07 by Jiml1126