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

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:38:56 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:


What you say is true, except I don't know of any majors looking at
serving this market. The closest I know of are regional jets which
only have economy seats. At least the ones I know. So why would it
terrify them? CO, for example, has long de-emphasized this market
as unprofitable and has concentrate on expanding internationally.
All the others are doing the same. They aren't terrified, they are
just looking at different markets where these guys can't compete.

What market are you referring to? Flights of 3 hours or
less? There
are a lot of flights on the majors from 1 to 3 hours and they are not
using regional jets on all of them. I've flown DEN to SFO/SJC on
everything from 737/A320 up to 777 and 747. My last flight, scheduled
for 1:20 was on a 737.

Mainly the international ones. The domestic ones have been marginally
profitable for years, which is why CO expanded over 25% after 9/11
while others contracted some 10+ %.


I know one person who always flies first class and he said
he would
gladly pay 20% more for the convenience of a VLJ. And he even
dislikes small airplanes! The airlines can't compete with the VLJ.
They know it. So they need a way to escalate the costs for the VLJ
so high that people will not go to it, and the fee system is their
solution.

Sorry two different markets, as I said.


Even though the majors don't serve these markets directly,
indirectly
they do and derive revenue from them. And that revenue, mainly the
premium first/business class revenue, is what they will no longer get.
(They will continued to get the coach revenue.) The key thing is
that this revenue is from a market they don't even serve or want to
serve.

I don't know what you mean. How does an airline derive revenue for
indirect markets?


No airline flies from say POU to ATL (ie. there is no airline service
at POU), but several airlines fly from LGA to ATL. Anyone going from POU
to ATL needs to drive 90 miles to LGA to then fly to ATL. The airline
derives revenue from that person for the LGA to ATL flight. That's how the
airline derives revenue from a maket (POU) that it doesn't serve.


Some major corporations have installations in areas the
majors no
longer want to serve, never did serve, or only provide service to a
hub. The majors didn't care because prior to fractional jets and
the VLJ there were no real alternatives. They got the business anyway.
The top executives at large corporation got the company jet while
everyone else either took a commuter flight or drove to the nearest
airport served by the majors (which could be a 2+ hour drive) and then
flew with a major to the destination, even when the destination was
less than 3 hours away. Or, the only end to end service the majors
offered was via a hub, no other viable choice was available.

This is all domestic, as I said, which the majors have been cutting
for some time to reposition internationally.


The lack of runway capacity at major airports has been caused by the
majors eliminating 767's and replacing them with multiple smaller jets,
737's and A320's mainly, to provide increased flight frequency. It wasn't
that long ago that the smaller aircraft did not have transcon capability.
They do now. The airlines would rather run 3 737's at 100% load factor
each rather than 2 767's at 60% load factor. More capacity (seats)on the
2 767 but lower load factor. Better profit margin at 100% load factor.
And, of course, to hell with the passenger if we have to cancel a flight,
as there is no spare capacity to book on another flight.


With the advent of the fractional jet, this started to
change.
Smaller companies could now afford corporate jets for their
executives, slightly cutting into the majors premium revenue. But
this was generally restricted to the top executives, so the impact,
while not trivial, wasn't too bad on the majors, but they did notice
it. Soon the VLJ's will be providing more alternatives and at a cost
which will permit middle level exeuctives or even lower (basically
anyone who is permitted to fly first or business class) to justify
using them. Couple this with the hassle of flying on a scheduled
airline today, especially if a hub is involved, and this not so
insignificant premium traffic will be lost to the majors. And this
lost revenue will not be because the majors decreased or discontinued
service to a small market. The majors never serviced the market yet
they got revenue from it.

Well, since they haven't been interested in these marginal markets for
some time, and, at best serve them with regional jets or not at all, I
don't understand what you think they are losing. It's just another
market being served by these others you mentioned. Major airlines
bookings are at all time records.


They haven't had to take an interest in these marginal markets as they
got the business regardless. Again, if you needed to go from East Podunk
to Midwest Podunk you drove to the nearest major carrier airport even if it
took 2+ hours. You then flew on the major to the nearest aiport they
served to Midwest Podunk and then drove to Midwest Podunk. Why would the
airlines care to serve East Podunk or Midwest Podunk if the passenger had
no choice but to drive to an airport they already served? I would do
exactly as the airlines did.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Sep 13, 11:00 pm, NotPC wrote:
Jon wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:00 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC
wrote:

BTW, my ass is not fat. I work for a living
My mistake. It was your head planted up your ass that expanded it so
I mistook it for being fat.

LOL.... Gold!

You real funny man

Actually it was John's spanking of your ass that I found funny. You,
continue to expose, with each new reply, what a pathetic individual
you are.

Dumbass

Another reference to "ass," Obsess with the anal cavity much?


Want some more?

On Sep 14, 1:10 am, Marty Shapiro
wrote:
[...]
The lack of runway capacity at major airports has been caused by the
majors eliminating 767's and replacing them with multiple smaller jets,
737's and A320's mainly, to provide increased flight frequency.

ASDE is an enabler for more efficient use of existing concrete. Then
the long pole most likely becomes the wake constraint (both on and
above the surface).

Regards,
Jon

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:10:30 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:

Even though the majors don't serve these markets directly,
indirectly
they do and derive revenue from them. And that revenue, mainly the
premium first/business class revenue, is what they will no longer get.
(They will continued to get the coach revenue.) The key thing is
that this revenue is from a market they don't even serve or want to
serve.

I don't know what you mean. How does an airline derive revenue for
indirect markets?


No airline flies from say POU to ATL (ie. there is no airline service
at POU), but several airlines fly from LGA to ATL. Anyone going from POU
to ATL needs to drive 90 miles to LGA to then fly to ATL. The airline
derives revenue from that person for the LGA to ATL flight. That's how the
airline derives revenue from a maket (POU) that it doesn't serve.

I see what you mean now, but it's a bit bizarre. By this analysis,
anytime anyone drives from a podunk town to an airport served by a
major they should be counted as indirect revenue. First, there is no
way of measuring this that I can think of. Second, airlines decide
where to fly, what aircraft to use, on what schedule, etc. by what
their marketing studies show. As I said before, they have long since
rejiiggered their routes internationally not because of this but
because they are more profitable due to cutthroat competitions by the
cheapos, becoming more efficient in the process. A number of these
cheapos who can't do that have gotten into a lot of trouble and some
going out of business, killing each other off, so that was the correct
decision. Majors aren't suffering from this. They are profiting with
record loads. Leave the junk to these guys and go after the cream.
It has worked very well.


This is all domestic, as I said, which the majors have been cutting
for some time to reposition internationally.


The lack of runway capacity at major airports has been caused by the
majors eliminating 767's and replacing them with multiple smaller jets,
737's and A320's mainly, to provide increased flight frequency. It wasn't
that long ago that the smaller aircraft did not have transcon capability.
They do now. The airlines would rather run 3 737's at 100% load factor
each rather than 2 767's at 60% load factor. More capacity (seats)on the
2 767 but lower load factor. Better profit margin at 100% load factor.
And, of course, to hell with the passenger if we have to cancel a flight,
as there is no spare capacity to book on another flight.

This is part of the reason, of course, but not all. Other factors are
the government ripping off the trust fund money that was supposed to
go to improving airports, a lousy, inefficient ATC systerm, etc. And,
of course, better loads means better money to a point. But sometimes,
they have lost money on 100% loads because costs were too high. That
why they abandoned a bunch of them.



Well, since they haven't been interested in these marginal markets for
some time, and, at best serve them with regional jets or not at all, I
don't understand what you think they are losing. It's just another
market being served by these others you mentioned. Major airlines
bookings are at all time records.


They haven't had to take an interest in these marginal markets as they
got the business regardless. Again, if you needed to go from East Podunk
to Midwest Podunk you drove to the nearest major carrier airport even if it
took 2+ hours. You then flew on the major to the nearest aiport they
served to Midwest Podunk and then drove to Midwest Podunk. Why would the
airlines care to serve East Podunk or Midwest Podunk if the passenger had
no choice but to drive to an airport they already served? I would do
exactly as the airlines did.

So would I. No one will stay in business long running unprofitably.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:51:09 -0700, Jon
wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:00 pm, NotPC wrote:
Jon wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:00 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC
wrote:

BTW, my ass is not fat. I work for a living
My mistake. It was your head planted up your ass that expanded it so
I mistook it for being fat.

LOL.... Gold!

You real funny man

Actually it was John's spanking of your ass that I found funny. You,
continue to expose, with each new reply, what a pathetic individual
you are.

Isn't that the truth? These people always have complete blinders on
to their own stupidity. I did a tour in Vietnam, and I can assure you
no one there cared what the color was of the guy next to them. I
wonder if this moron would have liked their job.

John Kulp wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:51:09 -0700, Jon
wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:00 pm, NotPC wrote:
Jon wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:00 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC
wrote:
BTW, my ass is not fat. I work for a living
My mistake. It was your head planted up your ass that expanded it so
I mistook it for being fat.
LOL.... Gold!
You real funny man
Actually it was John's spanking of your ass that I found funny. You,
continue to expose, with each new reply, what a pathetic individual
you are.

Isn't that the truth? These people always have complete blinders on
to their own stupidity. I did a tour in Vietnam, and I can assure you
no one there cared what the color was of the guy next to them. I
wonder if this moron would have liked their job.

I am sure if they were qualified they did not care.

If they were unqualified including butter bar white
lieutenants they were shot or disappeared in the jungle

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:09:46 -0400, WhoGivesAFig?
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:51:09 -0700, Jon
wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:00 pm, NotPC wrote:
Jon wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:00 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC
wrote:
BTW, my ass is not fat. I work for a living
My mistake. It was your head planted up your ass that expanded it so
I mistook it for being fat.
LOL.... Gold!
You real funny man
Actually it was John's spanking of your ass that I found funny. You,
continue to expose, with each new reply, what a pathetic individual
you are.

Isn't that the truth? These people always have complete blinders on
to their own stupidity. I did a tour in Vietnam, and I can assure you
no one there cared what the color was of the guy next to them. I
wonder if this moron would have liked their job.

I am sure if they were qualified they did not care.

If they were unqualified including butter bar white
lieutenants they were shot or disappeared in the jungle

That did happen alright.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:59 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity. That
would do a lot alright.

This issue is "where's the bottleneck". If it really is in control over
airspace, hiring more controllers is probably not a bad idea.

However, we all know that that's not the most critical issue at all
despite the claims of some otherwise. The real issue - runway count
combined with the hub/spoke model - gets no benefit from additional
controllers.

I do have one odd data point, however. I sat on the ramp in a small
airliner at EWR recently, waiting for weather to improve between EWR and
my destination in Ohio (I forget which airport). I was watching the
weather from my "phone". If I'd an airliner's speed and range, I'd have
taken off in a different direction (to the north would have been my
choice). Make a left around Albany, and the entire route would have been
weather-clear.

[Even w/o the range, I could have added a stop en route for fuel.]

Instead of that, though, we waited until the cells (which were over an
hour away when the wait started) passed EWR eastbound. Then we departed.

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

- Andrew

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:52:50 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:59 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity. That
would do a lot alright.

This issue is "where's the bottleneck". If it really is in control over
airspace, hiring more controllers is probably not a bad idea.

However, we all know that that's not the most critical issue at all
despite the claims of some otherwise. The real issue - runway count
combined with the hub/spoke model - gets no benefit from additional
controllers.

I do have one odd data point, however. I sat on the ramp in a small
airliner at EWR recently, waiting for weather to improve between EWR and
my destination in Ohio (I forget which airport). I was watching the
weather from my "phone". If I'd an airliner's speed and range, I'd have
taken off in a different direction (to the north would have been my
choice). Make a left around Albany, and the entire route would have been
weather-clear.

[Even w/o the range, I could have added a stop en route for fuel.]

Instead of that, though, we waited until the cells (which were over an
hour away when the wait started) passed EWR eastbound. Then we departed.

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

You ignoring all the other traffic that the airport was handling at
the same time which most likely made your flight do what it did. You
can't just do as you did and assume that space is available for your
aircraft. That's why they have controllers in the first place.

John Kulp writes:

Do you ever have one clue about what you're posting.

Yes, I always do.

A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses the Global Positioning
System to determine the precise location of a vehicle, person, or
other asset to which it is attached and to record the position of the
asset at regular intervals. The recorded location data can be stored
within the tracking unit, or it may be transmitted to a central
location data base, or internet-connected computer, using a cellular
(GPRS), radio, or satellite modem embedded in the unit. This allows
the asset's location to be displayed against a map backdrop either in
real-time or when analysing the track later, using customized
software.

That is a system that uses a GPS receiver as one of its components. GPS
itself does not provide tracking. The DoD deliberately designed it that way.