NPR discussion on NAS

[Neil Gould]

Thursday (8/30/07) the Diane Rehm show had an interesting discussion on
airline delays and the NAS. Several perspectives were offered from ATCs,
pilots, airline managers and others. Interestingly, most were saying that
GA was not a cause of airline delays, which was somewhat refreshing to
hear.

The show can be listened to here:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/08/30.php#13699

Neil

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
> Thursday (8/30/07) the Diane Rehm show had an interesting discussion on
> airline delays and the NAS. Several perspectives were offered from ATCs,
> pilots, airline managers and others. Interestingly, most were saying that
> GA was not a cause of airline delays, which was somewhat refreshing to
> hear.

NPR usually has the highest quality aviation reprting in the electronic
media.

That can't be said of American Public Media, an independent producer that
also broadcasts on public radio. On APR's "Marketplace" this morning, there
was a story about airspace modernization. The announcer introducing the
segment said "If you're flying this holiday weekend, brace yourselves. The
number of passengers is expected to be up 3 percent from last year. Experts
agree the best way to solve the problem is to rebuild the nation's air
traffic control infrastructure."


http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/08/31/AM200708311.html


'Experts agree!' Jeez.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[John T]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

> Experts agree the best way to solve the
> problem is to rebuild the nation's air traffic control
> infrastructure."
> 'Experts agree!' Jeez.

I'm sure two of them do... :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:19:20 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

> Interestingly, most were saying that
> GA was not a cause of airline delays, which was somewhat refreshing to
> hear.

Yes, but at least one of the heads was repeatedly claiming that GA doesn't
"pay its fair share". The same head [I think] also kept trying to turn
away from "congested runways" towards instead "congested airspace". That
is a way to try to blame GA, I believe.

But I just IFRed into LDJ this morning. I was tootling along at my 120
kias with the airliners 1000 or 2000 feet above. They were on final for
EWR's 4R. I didn't cause them any delay; there were as many airliners in
trail as the runway would permit.

Congested airspace? In a way, I suppose so. Causing delays? No.

As for "fair share", I'd guess that putting one slow-mover on the visual
for an uncontrolled field is a lot less work than lining up those
airliners of different speeds to a single runway.

More, it is better for ATC and the airliners to have me a known target
that they can move around than a 1200 blundering around w/o talking. In
fact, I should get paid for the extra work of filing a flight plan (which
may seem trivial until one counts the 20 minute wait time on my cell phone
while an FSS recording tells me how important my call is).

One interesting bit of the article for me was a rational defense of
hub-and-spoke. Was the speaker wrong?

- Andrew

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Gideon > posted:

> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:19:20 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>[i]
>> Interestingly, most were saying that
>> GA was not a cause of airline delays, which was somewhat refreshing
>> to hear.
>
> Yes, but at least one of the heads was repeatedly claiming that GA
> doesn't "pay its fair share". The same head also kept
> trying to turn away from "congested runways" towards instead
> "congested airspace". That is a way to try to blame GA, I believe.
>
Of course, there are those that think GA contributes to the problem of
airline delays (though I think that is pretty much BS), and the only way
to balance the discussion is to have someone with that perspective as a
participant. What I found refreshing is that even that voice had to back
off from the radical rhetoric that we hear and refocus his complaint on
paying the costs equitably. Even then, I didn't get the impression that he
was using the term "GA" to refer to us spam can pilots, but to business
jet operations.

Another participant contributed the idea that the NAS is as much a part of
our nation's infrastructure as are roads and bridges, and should just be
paid for in the same manner as those aspects. From that perspective, it's
a matter of priorities, and anyone short of the village idiot could see
that the total cost of upgrading and maintaining the NAS is a drop in the
bucket compared to drains such as a war in Iraq that shouldn't have been
started in the first place.

> Congested airspace? In a way, I suppose so. Causing delays? No.
>
> As for "fair share", I'd guess that putting one slow-mover on the
> visual for an uncontrolled field is a lot less work than lining up
> those airliners of different speeds to a single runway.
>
That point was supported by a couple of ATCs as well. More than one
participant stated that a major cause of delays is the airline's hub
system, a point that I also think is on target for a couple of reasons.
The hubs overload some airspace and has an impact throughout the country
when there is inclement weather near one of the hubs... if you "can't get
there from here", nobody goes anywhere. Add to that the greatly increased
passenger load per plane, and one missed connection becomes a real problem
for dozens of passengers that can go on for days at a time before it's
resolved. Another point that was made is that the actual number of flights
are about the same as in 2000, when there were no significant delays. GA
was certainly busier in 2000 than it is today.

> More, it is better for ATC and the airliners to have me a known target
> that they can move around than a 1200 blundering around w/o talking.
> In fact, I should get paid for the extra work of filing a flight plan
> (which may seem trivial until one counts the 20 minute wait time on
> my cell phone while an FSS recording tells me how important my call
> is).
>
Well, on this point we part ways. 1200s don't "blunder around" in the
airways or in Class A and usually not Class B. Certainly not to the point
where they are an impediment on the system.

> One interesting bit of the article for me was a rational defense of
> hub-and-spoke. Was the speaker wrong?
>
See above. The only defendant of the hub system that I heard was the
airline rep, and his point was that it provided access to airline travel
from locations such as in Maine that couldn't support direct airport
operations. That is the same justification that created the hub-and-spoke
system. But, other participants and callers challenged that notion on a
number of bases; it just doesn't work in reality. I thought the discussion
touched on much of the rhetoric that we hear, and debunked a lot of it.

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:44:43 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:


> Even then, I didn't get the impression that he
> was using the term "GA" to refer to us spam can pilots, but to business
> jet operations.

My opinion is that this is just a "divide and conquer" approach:

"Corporate GA has more money, so let's go after them. The little guys
won't complain about that. And after corporate GA is used to funding the
airlines, we'll hit the little guys. They don't have much, but that just
means that they cannot fund a PR campaign against us."

>
> Another participant contributed the idea that the NAS is as much a part
> of our nation's infrastructure as are roads and bridges, and should just
> be paid for in the same manner as those aspects. From that perspective,
> it's a matter of priorities, and anyone short of the village idiot could
> see that the total cost of upgrading and maintaining the NAS is a drop
> in the bucket compared to drains such as a war in Iraq that shouldn't
> have been started in the first place.

It was a good point; not enough is said about the economic impact air
travel has on the US. It would be nice to have numbers for this. Anyone
have references?

[...]

> Well, on this point we part ways. 1200s don't "blunder around" in the
> airways or in Class A and usually not Class B. Certainly not to the
> point where they are an impediment on the system.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "blunder". But a 1200 absolutely
can get in the way of airline and corporate GA operations, at least
around here. If I were to choose to practice spiral ascents and descents
around COL, for example, I could put a serious crimp in EWR outbound
traffic to the south (when the wind is blowing the right way).

I'm sure that ATC would work around this...but that's "work".

My typical "practice area" is north of SAX. I'm always on advisories for
this, and they always warn me to keep a ceiling of 5000 to avoid the
incoming traffic passing SAX. I could ignore those warnings, or simply
not talk to them. And if I were to practice maneuvers above 5000, I'd be
a crimp again.

And this is outside the mode C ring!

I've no problem being a "good neighbor". And that includes being in touch
with ATC. Much of the benefit of this, though, goes to the neighbor. So
while I don't mind it, I do get annoyed when some representative of the
neighbor wants to charge me for this!

>
>> One interesting bit of the article for me was a rational defense of
>> hub-and-spoke. Was the speaker wrong?
>>
> See above. The only defendant of the hub system that I heard was the
> airline rep, and his point was that it provided access to airline travel
> from locations such as in Maine that couldn't support direct airport
> operations. That is the same justification that created the
> hub-and-spoke system. But, other participants and callers challenged
> that notion on a number of bases; it just doesn't work in reality. I
> thought the discussion touched on much of the rhetoric that we hear, and
> debunked a lot of it.

But would dropping H&S further reduce air travel to those "smaller"
destinations? It does appear a reasonable possibility (from my admittedly
ignorant position).

- Andrew

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Gideon > posted:

> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:44:43 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>
>> Even then, I didn't get the impression that he
>> was using the term "GA" to refer to us spam can pilots, but to
>> business jet operations.
>
> My opinion is that this is just a "divide and conquer" approach:
>
> "Corporate GA has more money, so let's go after them. The little guys
> won't complain about that. And after corporate GA is used to funding
> the airlines, we'll hit the little guys. They don't have much, but
> that just means that they cannot fund a PR campaign against us."
>
You could be right about the intentions of some who espouse that position,
but if I could glean a level of interest based on the respondents in this
broadcast, it didn't seem to get much traction.

[...]
>> Well, on this point we part ways. 1200s don't "blunder around" in the
>> airways or in Class A and usually not Class B. Certainly not to the
>> point where they are an impediment on the system.
>
> Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "blunder". But a 1200
> absolutely can get in the way of airline and corporate GA operations,
> at least around here. If I were to choose to practice spiral ascents
> and descents around COL, for example, I could put a serious crimp in
> EWR outbound traffic to the south (when the wind is blowing the right
> way).
>
> I'm sure that ATC would work around this...but that's "work".
>
Not that it couldn't or doesn't happen, but II would think that such
impositions would have a very small impact on 135 operations.

>>> One interesting bit of the article for me was a rational defense of
>>> hub-and-spoke. Was the speaker wrong?
>>>
>> See above. The only defendant of the hub system that I heard was the
>> airline rep, and his point was that it provided access to airline
>> travel from locations such as in Maine that couldn't support direct
>> airport operations. That is the same justification that created the
>> hub-and-spoke system. But, other participants and callers challenged
>> that notion on a number of bases; it just doesn't work in reality. I
>> thought the discussion touched on much of the rhetoric that we hear,
>> and debunked a lot of it.
>
> But would dropping H&S further reduce air travel to those "smaller"
> destinations? It does appear a reasonable possibility (from my
> admittedly ignorant position).
>
Even the major airlines are putting more small jets into service. Most of
the commercial travel that we've done out of CLE in the last few years
have been on Embraers and 737s. For the really remote areas in Maine, New
Hampshire, etc. VLJs may play a larger roll. Expansion of both of these
should eliminate the need of H & S simply to service these areas. And, it
might eliminate scenarios such as what we ran into trying to book an
upcoming trip to Seattle via Las Vegas. The only available flights from
the major had us flying to Seattle via Houston! Surely, that is not
cost-effective?

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:53:42 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

>> "Corporate GA has more money, so let's go after them. The little guys
>> won't complain about that. And after corporate GA is used to funding
>> the airlines, we'll hit the little guys. They don't have much, but that
>> just means that they cannot fund a PR campaign against us."
>>
> You could be right about the intentions of some who espouse that position,
> but if I could glean a level of interest based on the respondents in this
> broadcast, it didn't seem to get much traction.

I think most of the pilots here - at least amongst those that view
services like ATC and management of the nation's airspace as a government
function - recognize the divide and conquer strategy being applied.
Certainly AOPA does.

Well...some use the "camel nose in the tent" view, but it amounts to the
same thing in this case.

[...]

>> I'm sure that ATC would work around this...but that's "work".
>>
> Not that it couldn't or doesn't happen, but II would think that such
> impositions would have a very small impact on 135 operations.

Around here, a fixed set of "gates" are used. It would be easy for those
gates to be "blocked" by VFR traffic. Then ATC needs to work around this.
It may have little impact on charter or airline operations, but it would
be more work for controllers.

It would be less work to avoid this by having that VFR target not be
there. That's a side effect of having us piston drivers IFR (or VFR with
advisories and willing to deviate on request).

That's all I wrote: that having use "talking" makes for less work for ATC.
Even just having a confirmed mode C is helpful.

[...]

>>
>> But would dropping H&S further reduce air travel to those "smaller"
>> destinations? It does appear a reasonable possibility (from my
>> admittedly ignorant position).
>>
> Even the major airlines are putting more small jets into service. Most
> of the commercial travel that we've done out of CLE in the last few
> years have been on Embraers and 737s. For the really remote areas in
> Maine, New Hampshire, etc. VLJs may play a larger roll. Expansion of
> both of these should eliminate the need of H & S simply to service these
> areas.

I share the hope that the "air taxi" concept will help serve these areas,
VLJs or whatever (isn't someone running a taxi service with Cirri?).
Perhaps that will kill the need for H&S.

Can the airlines do this? Or do they view air taxi operations as
competition?

I wonder what impact the shrinking of airline aircraft has on their costs.
I mean: is there some fixed per-flight cost which would define the
smallest aircraft they could "schedule"?

I cannot help notice that this push on the part of the airlines for
control over ATC and our airspace comes as a potential competitor is
possibly arriving. Coincidence? I wonder.

But does this mean that H&S was always flawed? Or did it make sense in
one environment, but not in the environment we hope is coming?

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> More, it is better for ATC and the airliners to have me a known target
> that they can move around than a 1200 blundering around w/o talking.
>

If you're in an area where you can blunder around on a 1200 code w/o talking
then you probably can't be moved by ATC.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Gideon > posted:

> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:53:42 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>> Even the major airlines are putting more small jets into service.
>> Most
>> of the commercial travel that we've done out of CLE in the last few
>> years have been on Embraers and 737s. For the really remote areas in
>> Maine, New Hampshire, etc. VLJs may play a larger roll. Expansion of
>> both of these should eliminate the need of H & S simply to service
>> these areas.
>
> I share the hope that the "air taxi" concept will help serve these
> areas, VLJs or whatever (isn't someone running a taxi service with
> Cirri?). Perhaps that will kill the need for H&S.
>
> Can the airlines do this? Or do they view air taxi operations as
> competition?
>
I wouldn't be surprised if the airlines saw anything in the sky as
competition. ;-)

> I wonder what impact the shrinking of airline aircraft has on their
> costs. I mean: is there some fixed per-flight cost which would define
> the smallest aircraft they could "schedule"?
>
The Embraers that we've been on are 60 seaters (or so), and that isn't
just for short hops. I prefer them to the larger planes because they have
more comfortable seating.

> I cannot help notice that this push on the part of the airlines for
> control over ATC and our airspace comes as a potential competitor is
> possibly arriving. Coincidence? I wonder.
>
I think you're on to something, there. Probably not a coincidence.

> But does this mean that H&S was always flawed? Or did it make sense
> in one environment, but not in the environment we hope is coming?
>
I think it was a bad idea that cost so much that it would be difficult to
change. As a country, we seem to find ourselves in that position all to
often for my liking.

Neil