http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html

"He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
that's been 10 years in the making.

"'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

"She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

"The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
aviation.

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent of
the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think it's not just
airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?