A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th, 2007, 06:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

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?
  #2  
Old September 12th, 2007, 12:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
JohnT[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 568
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

"Martin" wrote in message
...
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.

"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 admit to not being overwhelmed with surprise.


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


Try to keep up at the back.

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.


Time you did some in depth research, the answers to all your uncertainties
are
on the web, in the meantime don't give up you day job.
--


What day job?
--

JohnT

  #3  
Old September 12th, 2007, 03:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

On Sep 12, 1:29 am, 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.


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.


"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.


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.


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).


That's one, but not the only one.


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.


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.

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


Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through
volume.

"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?



I dunno. Probably depends upon how you think "traffic" should be
measured. Take-offs? Passengers? Miles? Hours? Not to
mention what is meant by "private".



  #4  
Old September 12th, 2007, 03:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
John Kulp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,535
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

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.
  #5  
Old September 12th, 2007, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

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.


  #6  
Old September 12th, 2007, 05:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
John Kulp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,535
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:19:31 -0400, NotPC
wrote:


Is this number correct?


Failure of leadership at the FAA by politically correct
appointees(WOMEN and BLACKS) who are clueless and incompetent

That is the problem at the FAA. The culture is ****ed up

The Civil rights staff is bigger than the Safety and
Technical Staff

"Kissing the Black Ass" supersedes safety and innovation at
the FAA.

It's HUD and FEMA not the FAA any longer

A big Guvment Cluster ****



Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take the stupid bigots
with them at the same time.
  #7  
Old September 12th, 2007, 06:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

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?

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.

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).

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.
  #8  
Old September 12th, 2007, 06:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

John Kulp writes:

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.


How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

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


GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

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?


Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?


Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

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


Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.
  #9  
Old September 12th, 2007, 06:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

Woulkd you care to describe those.....


Flying many small planes instead of fewer large ones. I look forward to your
details on operating costs.
  #10  
Old September 12th, 2007, 07:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
John Kulp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,535
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

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.


How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?


By flying different paths than now.


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


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?


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?


Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.


Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.


Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?


Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.


Sure. Regulation does wonder. Deregulation did nothing for the
industry. Brilliant once again.


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


Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.


You can babble this all you want. It hardly makes it true. And it's
not.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:07 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 11:31 AM
old record and travel to USA - Anyone had problems? bwfan USA & Canada 4 January 2nd, 2004 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.