If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:25:24 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: TMOliver writes: Currently, radar ATC is structured so that all a/c follow charted "corridors" enroute to destinations. It is assumed that a GPS-based system will allow direct flight paths, saving substantial time and distance. Because of the possibility of inoperative GPS systems in individual a/c, the radar system will have to remain in place and be maintained. What provision is made for failing GPS systems aboard aircraft? One aircraft misreporting its position could cause serious trouble for an entire region. One aircraft or transmitter deliberately sending out false information could be a terrorist's dream. Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy. Your compehension of reality is pretty limited, then. There are plenty of runways and no real overload of a/c. The problem occurs with too many flights coming and going from the same destinations at peak times. And why isn't that correlated with the number of available runways? Twice the runways means roughly twice the capacity. Talk to the government who has been ripping off the airline trust fund for years. Maybe they will print some money for building more and better airports. Which is what it was passed for in the first place before the thieves discovered it. A 737 with 150 aboard is several magnitues chaper to operate that 1 747 with 300+. Several orders of magnitude? Meaning _at least_ 100 times cheaper? What are the exact costs, and where did you find them? Check the web. Where you'll find out that 4 engined planes aren't anywhere near as efficient as two engined. Have much less fuel efficient engines,, etc. Airlines chose equipment and flight schedules to attempt to meet customer demand. Obviously, any improved system based on hub/spoke operations, the "norm" for US domestic service, will likely mean longer layovers as flight "blocks" are speced to reduce crowding. Smaller a/c are however here to stay and are the mainstay of furure planning by airlines. That's just what they said about 747s. Uuh. that was about 40 years ago ace when it was true. "Jumbos" are suitable only for limited routes requiring consistent passenger levels and types of service. There suitable for all sorts of service, if you don't need a departure every 15 minutes. Sure they are. That's why all the airlines use them. Right. Woulkd you care to describe those..... Flying many small planes instead of fewer large ones. I look forward to your details on operating costs. Oh, this has been all over the news. Go find it yourself. CO's CEO was just on the Today show a week or so discussing it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Sep 12, 1:12 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
me writes: Not necessarily airport flight paths, but the general "corridors" in which they fly. My understanding of this GPS based system is that it planes will generate their own flight paths and to a great degree "control" themselves. The result will be more direct paths between airports. Paths which are not currently used much or at all. But the only residents exposed to noise from aircraft regularly are those directly adjacent to airports. How would GPS navigation diminish this noise, as the article implies? It barely implies it. It didn't say what the objects were at all. And since it listed "environmentalists" as one of the groups, it doesn't have to be merely about noise. The system being proposed is that each plane "broadcast" to other planes their location, based upon GPS coordinates. Possibly also their flight plans. It gets ATC "out of the loop" to a great degree and merely puts them in more of a "monitoring" mode. I'm sure each airport will still have a tower controlling take-offs and landings. Sounds like a terrorist's fondest dream. And each failure endangers aircraft for miles around, and when there are lots of aircraft aloft, it's not fail-safe, it's fail-for-sure. Well, you presume that ATC doesn't exist at all. It merely changes the role of ATC and the pilots as well. Pilots gain control and the ATC reliqueshes it to some degree. The airforce already has a fair amount of autonomy in the skies (when it wishes). It merely requires certain systems and failure procedures. Really, in general, it will be better merely because more information is available to more people, all of whom have an interest in not crashing. There is plenty of airport capacity out there. There are a few that are all jammed up, but plenty more that have little crowding at all. Then apply quotas to commercial airline traffic, so that it is forced to distribute the load over many different airports (or make fewer flights with larger aircraft, which would be more efficient, anyway). You're talking about rationing and it already exists to some extent. Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits through volume. But they are not serving the public interest in doing so. Perhaps it's time to re-regulate. Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available resource. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
"John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:25:24 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: TMOliver writes: Currently, radar ATC is structured so that all a/c follow charted "corridors" enroute to destinations. It is assumed that a GPS-based system will allow direct flight paths, saving substantial time and distance. Because of the possibility of inoperative GPS systems in individual a/c, the radar system will have to remain in place and be maintained. What provision is made for failing GPS systems aboard aircraft? One aircraft misreporting its position could cause serious trouble for an entire region. One aircraft or transmitter deliberately sending out false information could be a terrorist's dream. Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy. Your compehension of reality is pretty limited, then. There are plenty of runways and no real overload of a/c. The problem occurs with too many flights coming and going from the same destinations at peak times. And why isn't that correlated with the number of available runways? Twice the runways means roughly twice the capacity. Talk to the government who has been ripping off the airline trust fund for years. Maybe they will print some money for building more and better airports. Which is what it was passed for in the first place before the thieves discovered it. There is no such thing as "the airline trust fund", it is called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund" and is funded at the rate in the table below. The private aircraft I used to fly would burn ~ 700 gallons of jet fuel between Dallas and New York. We normally carried 4-5 passengers. At the tax rate of $0.218/gallon it would be $152.60 per trip, or $38.15 tax per passenger. I do not see the airlines collecting anything near that. Updated 2/7/07 CURRENT AVIATION EXCISE TAX STRUCTURE (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Public Law 105-35) Aviation Taxes Comment Tax Rate PASSENGERS Domestic Passenger Ad valorem tax 7.5% of ticket price (10/1/99 through 9/30/2007) Ticket Tax Domestic Flight "Domestic Segment" = a flight leg Rate is indexed by the Consumer Price Index starting 1/1/02 Segment Tax consisting of one takeoff and one $3.00 per passenger per segment during calendar year (CY) 2003 landing by a flight $3.10 per passenger per segment during CY2004. $3.20 per passenger per segment during CY2005. $3.30 per passenger per segment during CY2006 $3.40 per passenger per segment during CY2007 Passenger Ticket Tax Assessed on tickets on flights that 7.5% of ticket price (same as passenger ticket tax) for Rural Airports begin/end at a rural airport. Flight segment fee does not apply. Rural airport: 100K enplanements during 2nd preceding CY, and either 1) not located within 75 miles of another airport with 100K+ enplanements, 2) is receiving essential air service subsides, or 3) is not connected by paved roads to another airport International Arrival & Head tax assessed on pax arriving or Rate is indexed by the Consumer Price Index starting 1/1/99 Departure Tax departing for foreign destinations (& Rate during CY2003 = $13.40 U.S. territories) that are not subject Rate during CY2004 = $13.70 to pax ticket tax. Rate during CY2005 = $14.10 Rate during CY2006 = $14.50 Rate during CY2007 = $15.10 Flights between continental U.S. and Alaska or Hawaii Rate is indexed by the Consumer Price Index starting 1/1/99 $6.70 international facilities tax + applicable domestic tax rate (during CY03) $6.90 international facilities tax + applicable domestic tax rate (during CY04) $7.00 international facilities tax + applicable domestic tax rate (during CY05) $7.30 international faciltiies tax + applicable domestic tax rate (during CY06) $7.50 international faciltiies tax + applicable domestic tax rate (during CY07) Frequent Flyer Tax Ad valorem tax assessed on 7.5% of value of miles mileage awards (e.g., credit cards) FREIGHT / MAIL Domestic Cargo/Mail 6.25% of amount paid for the transportation of property by air AVIATION FUEL General Aviation Fuel Aviation gasoline: $0.193/gallon Tax Jet fuel: $0.218/gallon Commercial Fuel Tax $0.043/gallon -- *H. Allen Smith* WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
"Allen" wrote AVIATION FUEL General Aviation Fuel Aviation gasoline: $0.193/gallon Tax Jet fuel: $0.218/gallon Commercial Fuel Tax $0.043/gallon Wow! I didn't know that the airlines paid almost no tax on fuel. Do the corporate jets get the same tax break, or do they pay the higher rate of ..s28 per gallon? From your post, I take that they do not. How about the new light jet businesses that do the taxi type charters? The airlines really have balls complaining about others not paying their fair share, when they pay squat on fuel, and little on per seat taxes. Typical of their powerful lobby. It still ****es me off, though. -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
TMOliver wrote:
A 737 with 150 aboard is several magnitues chaper to operate that 1 747 with 300+. Several "magnitudes"? Maybe I a bit confused regarding the definition of magnitude. Are you saying that it costs 3 or more times as much to operate a 747? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
TMOliver wrote: I don't know if the 40% is correct, but "executive jet a/c" certainly receive a "free ride" from the current system. Well a Citation CJ3 burns about 111 GPH at a tax rate of $0.219 that works out to about $24.31 per hour. While not not outrageous it isn't free. Do the airlines also pay this fuel tax? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: GPS does not track aircraft; radar does. Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it can't track aircraft. I have news for you. I was on an international flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So how, then, do the flights get to where they're going? GPS was used to guide the bombs to pre-determined fixed locations, which is a bit different than how it would work with aircraft. To use GPS for tracking an aircraft, the GPS device would be on the aircraft being tracked and it would have to broadcast this location information to the trackers. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote: (John Kulp) wrote: "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. Well that's certainly a matter for debate... The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without ATC at all. With the exception of a few airports that are commercial hubs, and a couple like Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO flights. Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control, or departure control. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:57 GMT, "Allen"
wrote: "John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:25:24 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: TMOliver writes: There is no such thing as "the airline trust fund", it is called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund" and is funded at the rate in the table below. The private aircraft I used to fly would burn ~ 700 gallons of jet fuel between Dallas and New York. We normally carried 4-5 passengers. At the tax rate of $0.218/gallon it would be $152.60 per trip, or $38.15 tax per passenger. I do not see the airlines collecting anything near that. That was my typo. I meant the airport trust fund. We are talking about the same thing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any problems with Travel Guard since they were bought by AIG? | Jeff Gersten | Cruises | 14 | November 26th, 2006 02:07 AM |
Florence Travel Article | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | September 16th, 2006 01:10 PM |
Australia Travel Article | [email protected] | Australia & New Zealand | 10 | September 15th, 2006 08:36 AM |
christmas air travel problems | Bill Hilton | USA & Canada | 2 | December 30th, 2004 10:31 AM |
old record and travel to USA - Anyone had problems? | bwfan | USA & Canada | 4 | January 2nd, 2004 09:48 PM |