On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:29:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

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.

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.


"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.

That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.


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).

Part of the problem but certainly not all. And seasonal as well,
being worse in summer and less in the off months.


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.

Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do? Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be
less competitive and go up?


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

They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.


"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?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees either.