Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
JetBlue CEO David Neeleman Supports Hollings/McCain Bill To Give Smaller Carriers Access To Major Airports
-- Airline CEO Says Competition Will Cure Service Woes --
New York, NY (March 13, 2001) – Competition will cure the airline industry’s customer service ills, says David Neeleman, CEO of New York’s hometown, low-fare carrier JetBlue Airways. But, first, smaller carriers must have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Speaking at the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing today, Mr. Neeleman said: “Today’s airline industry is perceived as late, uncaring, uncomfortable and expensive. The answer to many of the problems plaguing the industry is not a re-regulation of the industry, or laws governing how big an employee’s smile ought to be, but rather the capitalist cure known as competition.”
“The role of government,” he continued, “should be to ensure that smaller carriers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, in particular at constrained facilities where it matters most.”
JetBlue strongly supports S-414, the Aviation Competition Restoration Act, introduced by Senators Hollings and McCain. This bill, particularly Section 4, requires the Secretary to investigate the use of gates and facilities at the 35 largest airports and determine whether they are being fully utilized, whether they are available for competitors and whether they should be reassigned to non-dominant carriers in order to improve competition. Following such an investigation, the Secretary would be required to make such facilities available to an applicant airline on a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis. While other carriers have had difficulty obtaining access to numerous airports, JetBlue has been effectively locked out of two airports important to New Yorkers, both Boston’s Logan and Washington’s Reagan National.
“Of the top 1,000 passenger markets in the United States, the Boston-New York market is the third largest, despite average one-way fares of nearly 80 cents per mile, and the Washington-New York market is the fifth largest, with one-way fares of over 60 cents per mile,” Mr. Neeleman said. “In fact, fifteen years ago, when there was low fare competition, these two markets had two million more passengers than they do now. Imagine how much commerce and leisure traffic would be stimulated by JetBlue’s everyday low fares to and from New York’s JFK.”
From its base at John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City’s most on-time airport,1 JetBlue flies six times daily to Fort Lauderdale, FL; five times daily to Buffalo and Rochester, NY; four times daily to Orlando, FL; three times daily to West Palm Beach and Tampa, FL; twice daily to Burlington, VT; and daily to Los Angeles/Ontario, San Francisco/Oakland, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, and Fort Myers, FL. JetBlue will add daily service to both Seattle, WA, and Denver, C0, beginning May 1 and 17, respectively, as well as three times daily service to Syracuse, NY, starting May 7. The airline also will add second daily flights to Oakland, on May 1, and Ontario, on May 17
JetBlue currently operates 64 flights a day with a fleet of eleven brand new, environmentally-friendly Airbus A320 aircraft, outfitted with roomy all-leather seats each equipped with LiveTV, offering 24-channel satellite television at every seat. LiveTV is available free of charge to all JetBlue passengers. In 2001, JetBlue will take delivery of 10 more brand new Airbus A320 aircraft.
With JetBlue, all seats are assigned, all travel is ticketless, all fares are one-way, and a Saturday night stay is never required. For more information, schedules, and fares, please visit our website at www.jetblue.com or call JetBlue reservations at 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583).
* - Fares do not include a per segment $2.75 Federal tax and up to $6.00 Airport Passenger Facility Charge.
1- According to the March-November 2000 Air Travel Consumer Report provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4420 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 916 times:
This bill is an excellent idea. Airport capacity in major markets is limited due to the unreasonably burdensome environmental assessment requirements, and intense NIMBY resistance, to new runways. This means that a level playing field--*free market capitalism*--may only exist if the government keeps watch on gate capacity. The Big 6 Oligopoly-High Price Airlines may not close out competition in order to protect their high margins, and gouge consumers.
As a Washington DC resident, I would head for JetBlue in a minute if they came here. With all my travel to Rochester, which jetBlue already serves, JetBlue could save me $100-150 per ticket. Those savings add up. DCA is far more convenient than IAD or BWI any way you slice it for most of us. Though I'd gladly travel to either of those airports as well.
Neeleman's complaint is about DCA and BOS, I don't think there are airside capacity problems at IAD right now. They are building hundreds of linear feet of new ticket counters by renovating the Saarinen terminal (two banks have yet to open). They also opened the snazzy new B concourse last year, and many airlines (esp international) just park on the acres and acres of open tarmac and use the mobile lounges. They're also building a $1 billion people mover system. Of course the parking bowl is still a mess but new garages are under construction too.
Neeleman's after DCA. People Express flew to DCA, and as he noted traffic was higher then on the route than it is now. The National Capital Area is also over 30 percent bigger in population and economy today than in the early 1980's! There is no reason that DCA should be closed to low fare carriers; only a handful of such flights exist there today. The fool airport handles less than 40 movements per hour average, due to NIMBY restrictions which Congress can override at any time (as they did when they added a handful of long distance flights to please McCain last year). DCA can handle over 60 movements per hour.
McCain has also floated a proposal that should not fly, however. I don't know if it's part of this bill or separate. McCain would like to redistribute gates at major airports when any airline gets over 20 percent of the market. That's simply not reasonable in a hub-dominated system, and constitutes business engineering. A healthy hub is going to have 35-70 percent market share by nature. Hub size on its own should not be a criterion for federal redistribution of airport gates. An airport's refusal or inability to accomodate new airlines that want to land should be the criterion for considering redistribution.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4420 posts, RR: 35 Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 910 times:
Some more thoughts on the McCain Bill and gate redistribution: the tale of BWI.
After US Air and Piedmont merged, and US saw no competitive need to maintain PI's BWI hub (why give consumers more choices when we can cut service and hike fares?), BWI was in a nasty position. US Airways simply sat on the vast numbers of empty gates at their 47-gate D concourse (more gates than the rest of the airport put together until 2000) to obstruct 1993 arrivee Southwest Airlines from expanding. Uncle Herb was clear from day one that he was going to build a hub at BWI. 30-year leases can be a wonderful thing if you don't want competition, and Maryland couldn't do a thing about it.
So BWI built the 10-gate addition to the B concourse, which Southwest uses now, and US Airways' gates are still underutilized. I'm at BWI regularly, esp at rush hour, and the US gates are never more than half full even *with* MetroJet. And the airport's ticket counters and baggage carousels are still a mess. The other airlines have sat on the baggage carousels closest to Southwest's gates, and Maryland had to build two new carousels at the far end of the airport (in the old intl arrivals hall) for WN. It is a *haul* from WN's gates to baggage. On my last WN trip I think I saw Moses wandering with a large crowd of people in robes and tunics behind him.
IF BWI could rearrange, let alone redistribute, gates, ticket counters, and baggage carousels, the airport's capacity would be enlarged by (I estimate) about 20 percent. That would be very helpful for a few years until the new expansions come on line.
But thanks to 30-year leases, Big Air can keep BWI much more congested than it actually needs to be, while large sections of the airport stand little used. McCain's bill would help both passengers and the airport operator, and Big Air could still have as much space as they *needed* to conduct their healthy operations at BWI.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 898 times:
I agree with you. Your arguement is clear and concise. However, can't the city sue to end the 30 year lease? There's got to be an escape clause in there somewhere.
I hope this bill gets passed quickly. Also, I'm sure that this bill will be amended once it goes in front of the full house and senate. I'm also sure that enough pork will be strung on to this bill to feed a family of 10!
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 881 times:
The CEO of JetBlue, in my opinion, is dead wrong. It isn't up to the governmet to set up competition in a free-market economy like ours. You really believe him when he says it's best for the industry? Bull-it's best for JetBlue, and that is who he has to look out for. The fact is that in a capatilistic, free-market economy, "competition" means that ultimately someone will fail. It does NOT mean the we tell Big Airline that they can't lower their fares when New Entrant Airline comes into a market, starts service, and lowers fairs to a level they can't possibly make a profit at. US and TW are becoming the latest victims of a free-market economy, joining PA, EA, BN and a host of others. It's not a matter of artificially trying to prop up competition, as some people want; it's a matter of letting the market determine who will survive and who will not. That's what a free economy does.
Some airports have a "use it or lose it" clause in their contracts with carriers, and that could solve the problems like BWI apparently has with its gates that were mentioned.
Yet this McCain thing on redistibuting gates, nonetheless, is a load of garbage that would throw the entire system into chaos if implimented. What's he gonna do in Detroit-tell Northwest that even though they use their gates, that the government is gonna give them to someone else? That's communism!! That's no better than when the Soviet Union took away land from the peasants to make "collective" farms to serve the state. I think the airlines would rightly react sharply to such nonsense.
If you want the government to run the airline business, then go to somewhere like China. The government should do what it does best-protect the country from agression, an collect taxes. Everything else they should keep their hands off of. Such an idiotic proposal to redistibute gates throughout the country would cause utter chaos in the business, and it wouldn't be for the better in the long-term, either.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 857 times:
I think this bill is designed to weed out the anti-trust practices as described by DCA-ROCguy.
Don't tell me that locking up all the gates at an airport and then pulling out (while maintaining the lease) and leaving a handful of flights behind is "free market trade" and good for the consumer.
If you want to pay $2,000 for all the inconviences of limited flights, be my guest Alpha 1. There has to be a point where the government says, "hey, this isn't good business." When both United and American control close to 90% of the market and can conspire to jack up prices, something must be done.
MaxPowers From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 475 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 858 times:
How is this communism when they want to offer unused gate time to competition? Please explane. There are alot of gates that aren't used for about 2 hours at a time. They want to let a smaller airline to get in there while there is nothing going on and let them use it so the can make money. I quote "Section 4, requires the Secretary to investigate the use of gates and facilities at the 35 largest airports and determine whether they are being fully utilized, whether they are available for competitors and whether they should be reassigned to non-dominant carriers in order to improve competition."
Did they say they were going to take away gate time? No, they want to give the unused time to smaller airlines.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Max, why should XYZ airline share their gates with ABC airlines? So ABC airlines can make money at their expense? That's like saying that a coke machine should be required to sell pepsi at certain times to foster competition. That's like saying that if McDonalds has 90% of the fast-food business in a town, that during certain hours, Burger King gets the store to make money and "foster competition" If XYZ pays for the gate, maintains the gate, and USES the gate on a regular basis, then they shouldn't have to share it with anyone, in my opinion.
And what does "fully utilized" mean? Who decides that? That's pretty vague, isn't it? You think you have gridlock now, wait till EVERY gate is being used every hour on the hour to foster competition!
If XYZ has 20 gates, and runs banks using most of those gates at 6am, 8am, 9am, 11am, 12noon, 2pm, 4pm, 530pm 730pm and 940pm, that's a lot of utilization, isn't it? Why should XYZ let someone else come in to undercut their business? There's no business in the world who would stand for that.
I appreciate you bringing up your opinion on how you feel about it. But drop the DOH line
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 849 times:
Croupier, that's a great analogy! Wish I had thunk it!
I agree, "use it or lose it" clauses are a good idea. If an airline stop using gate space, and just lets it sit there empty, they should lose it. But the government has no business telling Northwest in Detroit, or United in Dulles or Continental in Cleveland that "we don't like that you're bigger than everyone else here-give up your space".
And there are some practical considerations in this nonsense. Ok, let's say this passes, and XYZ, who has 65% of the gates at Anywhere, USA, is forced to share space wiith new airline ABC to "promote competition" Let's say there's a snowstorm in the eastern half of the country, where Anywhere is located, and operations are slowed to a crawl. Let's further say that XYZ has 2pm and 4pm banks, but at 3pm they have to give the space to ABC. But now all the 2pm XYZ flights are delayed, and it's running into the 4pm bank,and they HAVE to use all the gates they own. What happens then?
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 844 times:
I think the best solution is somewhere in between the extremes. Alpha is right in saying that there is no justification to remove an incumbent from gates merely because they seem to dominate the market from a certain area. Market share has been built painstakingly by instituting a hub or by increasing frequencies from an area - it make no business sense whatsoever to force a SUCCESS STORY to give up their market share to give a chance to a low fare carrier.
On the other hand though, incidents such as those at BWI leave a poor taste in my mouth. There is no excuse for US to waste capacity at that hub, especially when there exists another carrier willing to pick up that space. AA/WN at BNA is a good example of what BWI *should* have become.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 842 times:
>>If an airline stop using gate space, and just lets it sit
>>there empty, they should lose it.
I this is the main point of the bill. The point that DCA-ROCguy brought up is tantamount to someone buying an entire housing complex in the middle of a housing crunch and then using only 1 complex for him/herself.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4420 posts, RR: 35 Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 836 times:
Thanks Neil, Max, and 744 for the support and good points. Neil is correct: it is unjust for a major airline to sit on vast numbers of empty gates after they cut back at an airport, simply to prevent competition and prevent the possibility of low fare carriers entering the market.
Alpha, your comparison of airline travel to laissez-faire type capitalism is dead wrong. Airports are owned, operated (usually), and backed by the taxpaying public. All those revenue bonds that build terminals and runways are issued on *Joe Taxpayer's bond rating.* Big Air is subsidized by Joe Taxpayer's good credit. Thus the public and elected officials are completely justified to demand that unused airport capacity be freed up, like the acres of quiet departure lounges at BWI's D concourse.
Air travel, like it or not, is a partly-public, partly private thing. Airlines are businesses that have to make money. But they use public facilities at discount prices (public bond ratings tend to be good, and airlines enjoy that discount on their space rentals and landing fees). The Big 6 can hold cities hostage to prevent competition, and prevent real free market capitalism. This is unjust and McCain is correct to introduce this bill. Airline deregulation was meant to open travel to all, not gate it for the rich which Big Air would like to do.
I'm not as confident that mandatory gate sharing is a good idea; Max, are you sure that's part of the proposal? As Alpha points, out schedules and times can change, and if an airline is actually using the gate, they aren't really preventing competition. This is why I argued against McCain's other proposal to trigger gate redistribution when one airline gets over 20 percent. In addition to flying in the face of airline hub economics, that means that successful airlines are being penalized for success. At 50-70 percent maybe issues of market closure could be raised, but not at 20 percent.
In the dominant US lease/ sublease arrangement of distributing gates, forced time-sharing would not work well. In any event, Croupier's comparison to sharing houses with the homeless is invalid. Airports are public facilities not private residences.
However, American airports may want to consider the European arrangement (also used at YVR) where counters, gates, and carousels are held by the airport and airlines rent them by the hour. YVR's international and transborder ticket counters are held in common and used by airlines as needed. I'm not sure how this works legally, but it seems to work well enough there.
Neil, I don't know if BWI's gate leases have an escape clause. Typically US airports write escape clauses for expansions into their leases (eg, if they build an addition and the radial parking positions at an existing concourse-end are lost). But I don't know about usage. I do know that the airport-management profession has taken notice of BWI's experience, but am not sure to what result.
In any event, the public has the right to demand that public facilities are run in their interest. To call that "communism" is simply to show ignorance of the nature of the airport and and airline businesses.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 829 times:
With all respect, I've never heard anyone say the airlines in this country are subsidized for anything. That's not true. CO is pouring millions into Newark-their own money. They aren't being subsidized there, so why should they have to hypothetically share that space that they're spending money on simply because someone decides they're "too big" in a market. I don't believe I'm dead-wrong on that point.
Artificially cutting off how big an airline can become in a market, good idea as it seems to some, could have some disastrous effects for individual citiies at individual airports. Let's use CLE as an example, where CO has about 65% of the business. Let's say the government says an airline can't go beyond 50% at an airport. Guess, what, in CLE that would have meant the CO would never have initiated CLE-LGW service, and would not be considering CLE-CDG, CLE-FRA. They simply would not have the traffic to feed those routes.
And do you think airlines in a system that artificially cuts off how big a carrier can be are gonna coordinate their schedules, so that they can feed someone else flying to LGW? No, they're not. Hence, a city like CLE that now has a stable CLE-LGW flight would be shut out of gaining such service, in my opinion. The only cities left with any international service are cities on the coasts, or airports like ATL, DFW and ORD. That's not good for competition either.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 820 times:
I think that this bill isn't aimed so much as trying to destory existing and future hubs as it is protecting gate usage.
Under this current system, theoratically, an airline can go to an airport and buy up all the gate space for a "hub" but then only offer limited flights to limited destinations from there. This would destory competition. An airline like American or United could, in thoery, go to any airport planning airline service and lock in gates so that others couldn't use them (even if themselves weren't planning to).
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 819 times:
I agree with that assessment 100%. An airline cannot do what apparently happened in BWI-buy all these gates then let them sit idle. That doesn't do consumers and cities any good. If any thing, it is a way to drive up prices because that carrier is paying for things it isn't using. It's a waste. I have no argument on that point.
However, my point has been that if an airline is willihg to invest time and capital into an airport to establish a large presence-and utilizes the facilities it has, then they shouldn't be punished by being artificially limited as to the scope of their service.
Further, I think you would see such artificial limits just kill smaller airports in smaller cities. Without significant feeder traffic into an airport, the South Bend's. Erie's, Evansville's and Victoria's of America will see their air service drastically reduced, and that isn't good for competition, either. You can't force an airline into serving anywhere, and those are the first places that would be affected by such a move.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4420 posts, RR: 35 Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 818 times:
Your point isn't clear, Alpha; did you read all of my last post? I argued against limiting hub size for exactly the reason you mention, that it flies in the face of airline hub economics. It would be ridiculous for Cleveland to limit the size of Continental's growth; if anything, the city industrial development authority would probably issue bonds to back additional terminal capacity (which at Hopkins is feasible).
My point was, as Neil just re-stated, that dominant carriers cannot lease gates and then not use them and deny them to other carriers. That, as far as I can tell, is the point of the McCain bill. And if a dominant airline loses a few gates it does use, something that could happen, that will hardly limit its growth. Airlines are amazingly capable--WN at PHX, and US at the old PIT--of squeezing high usage out of a limited number of gates.
Which brings us back to airport expansion--I can't help suspect that McCain is trying to build pressure for expansion of major airports with this bill. If major carriers face the possibility that they will lose some gates, they will back expansion all the harder. A logjam has developed between the rock of NIMBYs and the hard place of major carriers with long term leases. McCain, I think, is trying to help break that logjam.
Airlines are very much subsidized by the taxpayers. We build their facilities, operate them, and run their air traffic control system. Even if Continental is building a new terminal at Newark, Joe Taxpayer built the airport itself, maintains it, and runs its control tower. There aren't Continental runways or ATCT at Newark. In return, airlines provide a service that is critical to our way of life, both economically and socially. They are not autonomous to abuse communities and consumers. And closing competition--especially low-fare competition--out of major airports such as DCA and BOS is abusive.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 815 times:
I understand your point, and I just don't agree with it. I don't think if CO in CLE is utilizing it's gates like they do now-which in effect, they're maxed-out, I don't see why they should be told they have to give them to a competitor for any reason.
How would that work? Would airline ABC have to sublease the gate space/time from airline XYZ? If so, then airline XYZ is gonna charge ABC thorugh the nose for the use of that gate. They wouldn't give the space away, would they? Or will the government tell them they can't do that? Again, what happens during irregular ops, when XYZ's gates are full due to delays? Does the government step in there as well, and mandate something?
My point is this: you let the government in on this, and you'll have a nightmare worse than anything you have now. If you let their foot in the door, they'll want to regluate the whole ball of wax, and in the long run, things will be worse than they are now.
And I still don't agree with your view on subsidies. To me, a subsidy means that a person/company is not paying for something. Believe me, CO IS paying for those gates/facilities. CO in CLE is paying like $3.72 per 1000 lbs landing weight in CLE to pay for the facility upgrades going on (and not going on) there. And it was just announced that CO will have to pay roughly 60% of the costs associated with protecting a creek near Hopkins' if the parallel runway is built-that'll be roughly $55 million out of CO's coffers. There's no subsidy there, is there?
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4420 posts, RR: 35 Reply 24, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 815 times:
I've heard those threats from major carriers--take gate capacity away at LGA, BOS, etc, and the airlines will cut service to South Bend, Erie, etc. But the federal gov't can get around that abusive and anti-competitive threat. They have been doing it for years at LaGuardia--a certain number of slots are reserved for regional carriers, which economically are best suited for serving smaller communities.
Airlines simply have to understand that they hold a public trust. They are businesses, yes, but they are not free to dedicate all their resources to running up fat profit margins on major-city shuttle and transcon routes, and then stick medium and smaller cities with meager service and high fares. They have to expect that these cities, which make up a sizeable part of the US population, are going to strike back through the only means available: their US Representatives and Senators.
And Big Air is not free to close new competition--principally low-fare competition--out of major airports. They simply cannot expect to take Joe Taxpayer's money, operate like Gordon Gekko, and expect Joe Taxpayer to sit back and admire their business acumen. BOS-Atlanta can survive on 9 flights a day with 767's rather than 16 with 757's, M80's, and 738's. And if AirTran or Frontier were kept out of BOS because of space limitations at that tight airport, the FAA has every right to tell Delta to limit gate space--and restrict the percentages of mainline and regional a/c in order to ensure service to smaller cities. Bigger planes and limited frequencies are a must at major airports.
Big Air has brought push to shove at major airports, and unfortunately the Federal gov't has to intervene. I'd like to watch Delta, et al, cut all their service to South Bend, Erie, etc, from major airports, in order to protect super-high frequencies on high-margin shuttle routes. They'd find themselves completely re-regulated so fast it'd make their greedy heads spin. And that would be an outcome that would make no one happy, but would guarantee a minimum of air service justice.
25 Alpha 1: I didn't put it out there as a threat-it's gonna be an economic reality, my friend. There won't be the demand to service those cities unless you have
26 DCA-ROCguy: Hmm...maybe I'm not writing clearly, but in any event there isn't as much disagreement here as there might appear. Alpha: I didn't put it out there as
27 Lowfareair: Here is my proposal: any airline that wants a gate at an airport must have 5 flights/day of their own flights(No selling to other airlines.). More tha
28 MaxPowers: Alpha 1, we the people own most of the airports anyways, the airlines should not buy then not use the gates for over 25% of the day becasue that is ju
29 Pilot1113: MaxPowers... I believe we settled that issue, Alpha 1 and the rest of us all agree that Big Air can't lock up an entire terminal and then only use 2 g
30 Alpha 1: My friend, what is name-calling gonna get you? Not a think. I could give a rat's rear end what you think of me, and besides that's not the issue. If y
31 DCA-ROCguy: McCain's airport gate proposals are an example of his "reform" instincts run to far, I think, Neil. He proposes to free up some gates for new entrant