How To Prevent Destruction of Airline Industry: Non-Profit VerticalOil Company

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:34:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the
airline has a sound financial position.

All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing.

Which, of course, thet have loads of don't they?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:53:47 -0700, dgs wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:

" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

Why bother with oil? How about a truly alternative approach? Like,
for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's
coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to
convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? This can be blended with
petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a
way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?

Great idea but how do you plan to handle the environmentalists who
won't let you do it?

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:53:47 -0700, dgs wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:

" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

Why bother with oil? How about a truly alternative approach? Like,
for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's
coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to
convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? This can be blended with
petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a
way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?

Great idea but how do you plan to handle the environmentalists who
won't let you do it?

Put them on the "No Fly" list.

In article ,
(John Kulp) wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:34:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the
airline has a sound financial position.

All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing.

Which, of course, thet have loads of don't they?

Nope. But as I said, it seems logical to try and control that
what is your first or second greatest expense. At least part of it. They
had more cash when the cost of fuel went up?

On Apr 22, 2:39*pm, Robert Cohen wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:53*am, dgs wrote:





Robert Cohen wrote:
" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

Why bother with oil? *How about a truly alternative approach? *Like,
for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's
coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to
convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? *This can be blended with
petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a
way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?
--
dgs

I recall a boast *that Jet Blue is involved with researching fuel from
coal, which is nothing new since this has been done by necessity by
Germany and possibly by South Africa during their infamous crises in
the 20th century

My totally irrational politically know nuthin prejudiced opinion: The
U.S. govt under Bush II is not going to take any oil market away from
the oil industry.

Maybe Hillary, Barack, and McCain would, while McCain thinks ethanol a
boondoggle (and he's probably accurate).

If they'd make the mentanol-ethanol from kudzu and some other weeds
and waste, I'd certainly be gungho for it.

But there are food riots on-going now, which is a predictable result
but damn awful thing.

Coal--fuels is an obvious thing, and I suppose private industry would
bring it about if, say, the airlines and/or trucking companies,
assured the industry of buyers for the seemingly higher priced "coal
derived fuels."

When the production of coal fuel is massive, the price is market-
lowered and via economy of scales.

"Filler-up with kudzu" is my first preference, though coal seems to me
to be alreadty be historically proven.

Steam a la Stanley Steamer (1920s car and name of a rug cleaning
franchise) is my preference after garbage, chicken and pig waste.

Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a
la global warming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The culprit for the starvation is ethanol as explained:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...rss_topstories

In message Benjamin Dover
wrote:

Put them on the "No Fly" list.

They'll just use even more fuel by driving.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:20:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
(John Kulp) wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:34:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the
airline has a sound financial position.

All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing.

Which, of course, thet have loads of don't they?

Nope. But as I said, it seems logical to try and control that
what is your first or second greatest expense. At least part of it. They
had more cash when the cost of fuel went up?

Yes they did and, of course, that is exactly what they are all trying
to do.

DevilsPGD wrote in
:

In message Benjamin Dover
wrote:

Put them on the "No Fly" list.

They'll just use even more fuel by driving.

But they won't be able to run around the country delivering their message
as easily.

Many years ago, there was one of these ecoNazis who railled against the
airlines for wasting fuel. He managed to get on the late night shows and
I'll never forget how Johnny Carson cut him to ribbons. The ecoNazi said
that it wasn't necessary for three airlines to run 5 flights a day from NY
to LA and also 5 flights a day from NY to SF, most of which were less than
half full. They should eliminate at least half the flights and fly NY to
LA to SF or NY to SF to LA. He kept giving example after example like
this. Johnny then sucked him in by telling the ecoNazi what a great idea
he had and then calmly asked where in the last week he had talked about
this great idea. The ecoNazi rattled off an impressive list of cities he
had visited in the past week to give this "speech". Johnny then asked him
how, if his idea had been implemented, he would have had the flexibility in
airline flights to keep such a schedule. The ecoNazi literally freaked out
and was unable to make any intelligible sounds for the rest of his
interview.

wrote:

On 22 Apr, 03:48, James Robinson wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:

Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.

Why do they need to do this?

In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their
operating cost. All they need to do is pass the cost on to their
customers. The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that
they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is
high.

Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price
of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to
great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned.


Or they just 'gambled' the wrong way.


That is an excellent way of putting it.

Robert Cohen wrote:


Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a
la global warming.

What fuel would they use to make the steam?

The problem is that we can save oil in other ways, without killing the
airlines.

Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply
Gasoline is a problem because it increases the price of oil for
industries that REALLY need it, like airlines.

Electrical energy for cars, homes, and businesses would dramatically
reduce our dependence on oil. However, in the US this is problem,
because fossil fuels are being used to get electricity.
What we need are more nuclear power plants.
In fact, burning coal sends more radioactive waste into our atmosphere
than nuclear power plants would.