MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:40 pm

"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
 
contrails
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:23 am

"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!
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
Any ideas?

Bigger aircraft!!!
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:06 am

"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
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:45 am

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.
 
okie73
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:15 am

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.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:37 am

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
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
Any ideas?

How 'bout just fixing the @#(*&#@) ATC system?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
NW748i
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:46 am

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!
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:57 am

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!!!!
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:17 am

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
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:26 am

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.
 
okie73
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:33 am

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]
 
airportplan
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:36 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:52 am

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.
 
NW748i
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:10 am

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!
 
5mileBob
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:45 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:59 am

,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
 
contrails
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:18 am

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!
 
P3Orion
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:23 am

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.
I will have a Manhattan.
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: FAA: Crowded Skies To Get More Crowded

Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:25 am

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]

Who is online