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
  #11  
Old September 12th, 2007, 07:22 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 19:25:24 +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  
Old September 12th, 2007, 08:29 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, 1:12 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  
Old September 12th, 2007, 10:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Rick Blaine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

(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.

What drives all those ATC costs are commercial aircraft that a) all want to land
at the same time, and b) have cockpit equipment that was designed 40 years ago,
thus they have to have ATC around.

Most GA aircraft have modern cockpits fully capable of detecting traffic
conflicts, rerouting for weather and operate out of airports that are lucky to
see more than a couple of dozen flights a day.

This is really an argument over who created the problem and who gets to pay to
solve it. GA didn't create the problem and shouldn't be force to bail the
airlines or the government out.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
  #14  
Old September 13th, 2007, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Allen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 04:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 04:32 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 04:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:09 AM 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 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  
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:11 AM 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 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

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 09:55 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.