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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which airports needed? (was: Southwest Airlines not so "luvy"?)
Jeff W schrieb:
"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... "Jeff W" wrote in message m... "George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... "Jeff W" wrote in message m... randee wrote in message ... Just because the law is there won't make it happen, as numerous airports can testify. Or as my whole state can testify. I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn where anything government related follows it's own rules closely. Because it seems if the law has a slight chance of not being do-able, we ignore it. I see we have moved into the realm of paranoia and away from real-world financing. Well, 26 million people and all the newspapers must be paranoid since lawmakers in this state pass laws and consitutional amendments that are openly not enforced and complied with. 26 million people run airports? They even have press conferences on it. I don't see why passing a law that an airport has to break even would be the first and only obligation to be fulfilled over all overs. You don't seem to know the difference between airside and the landside at all. All I see now from you is paranoid comments. I lived through the collapse of a hub, and saw the consequences. Other airlines moved in and that was that. It was no big deal. Let's back up for a second and look what's being proposed. All airports must break even. In concept I would agree and like the idea, but when we think ahead of what happens: Most people don't live in NY with 3 overcrowded airports. Florida would go from it's 20 international airports, some crowded, most dead and tax subsidized, to about 4 commerical hubs. Maybe 5 or 6 optimistically will stay open because of UPS and fedex, but that would be all. Who knows in other states what will be left, say Georgia, how many airports will break even? What happens in the Mid-West? The deep south? Probably not much since it cost so much to fly away from hubs anyway. Then we have the other side of it. A law that says something must break even or produce a profit. Where's this been said before. Toll roads, not followed at all. Civic Centers, not supposed to break even, but it sure helps them get built when you say they will and make a "law" on that. Some mass transit projects, same as the last one. Laws on public input at government meetings, not always followed. Class size reduction laws, nope to expensive, we aren't going to comply. Same with high speed rail. Corporate income tax, voluntary. Sunshine laws, lot of closed door meetings and decisions going on. I seriously doubt airports would be the only agency that must comply with any type of state, federal, or state amendment laws with nothing else complying. And once again, I don't think 26million people, and all major newspapers filling up their pages with this junk counts as paranoia. Unless Paranoia equals not being rosey and optimisitic? Also, go back to not everyone being next to a hub and other factors, roads will be overburdened and a bigger rental car and highway lobby will come. The rental car companies are practically dictating the 2 billion dollar intermodal hub in Miami right now. Who knows what's going on in Orlando which hosts the worlds largest rental car parking lot. Like I said, I like the concept, but I really don't like consequences when I think about it. Why not discuss that in rec.travel.air? Regards & F'up2, ULF |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which airports needed? (was: Southwest Airlines not so "luvy"?)
"Ulf Kutzner" wrote in message ... Jeff W schrieb: "George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... "Jeff W" wrote in message m... "George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... "Jeff W" wrote in message m... randee wrote in message ... Just because the law is there won't make it happen, as numerous airports can testify. Or as my whole state can testify. I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn where anything government related follows it's own rules closely. Because it seems if the law has a slight chance of not being do-able, we ignore it. I see we have moved into the realm of paranoia and away from real-world financing. Well, 26 million people and all the newspapers must be paranoid since lawmakers in this state pass laws and consitutional amendments that are openly not enforced and complied with. 26 million people run airports? They even have press conferences on it. I don't see why passing a law that an airport has to break even would be the first and only obligation to be fulfilled over all overs. You don't seem to know the difference between airside and the landside at all. All I see now from you is paranoid comments. I lived through the collapse of a hub, and saw the consequences. Other airlines moved in and that was that. It was no big deal. Let's back up for a second and look what's being proposed. All airports must break even. In concept I would agree and like the idea, but when we think ahead of what happens: Most people don't live in NY with 3 overcrowded airports. Florida would go from it's 20 international airports, some crowded, most dead and tax subsidized, to about 4 commerical hubs. Maybe 5 or 6 optimistically will stay open because of UPS and fedex, but that would be all. Who knows in other states what will be left, say Georgia, how many airports will break even? What happens in the Mid-West? The deep south? Probably not much since it cost so much to fly away from hubs anyway. Then we have the other side of it. A law that says something must break even or produce a profit. Where's this been said before. Toll roads, not followed at all. Civic Centers, not supposed to break even, but it sure helps them get built when you say they will and make a "law" on that. Some mass transit projects, same as the last one. Laws on public input at government meetings, not always followed. Class size reduction laws, nope to expensive, we aren't going to comply. Same with high speed rail. Corporate income tax, voluntary. Sunshine laws, lot of closed door meetings and decisions going on. I seriously doubt airports would be the only agency that must comply with any type of state, federal, or state amendment laws with nothing else complying. And once again, I don't think 26million people, and all major newspapers filling up their pages with this junk counts as paranoia. Unless Paranoia equals not being rosey and optimisitic? Also, go back to not everyone being next to a hub and other factors, roads will be overburdened and a bigger rental car and highway lobby will come. The rental car companies are practically dictating the 2 billion dollar intermodal hub in Miami right now. Who knows what's going on in Orlando which hosts the worlds largest rental car parking lot. Like I said, I like the concept, but I really don't like consequences when I think about it. Why not discuss that in rec.travel.air? Regards & F'up2, ULF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | March 18th, 2004 09:16 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | February 16th, 2004 10:03 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | January 16th, 2004 09:20 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | December 15th, 2003 09:48 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | November 9th, 2003 09:09 AM |