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

[Mxsmanic]

http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/index.html

> "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
> failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
> that's been 10 years in the making.
>
> "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
> saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

> "She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
> 1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
> technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
> noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

> "The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
> aviation.
>
> "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?

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Martin" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:29:44 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/index.html
>>
>>> "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
>>> failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
>>> that's been 10 years in the making.
>>>
>>> "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
>>> saying no,' Castelveter said."
>>
>>I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.
>>
>>> "She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
>>> 1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
>>> technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
>>> noise for 600,000 people.'"
>>
>>I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would
>>reduce
>>delays.
>
> I admit to not being overwhelmed with surprise.
>
>>
>>I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.
>>
>>From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number
>>of
>>runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
>>where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays
>>occur
>>(or at least that's their ultimate origin).
>>
>>Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying
>>737s
>>and A320s
>
> Try to keep up at the back.
>
>>and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
>>day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
>>traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
>>routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
>>resources.
>>
>>I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is
>>they
>>nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
>>inefficient.
>
> Time you did some in depth research, the answers to all your uncertainties
> are
> on the web, in the meantime don't give up you day job.
> --
>

What day job?
--

JohnT

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 12, 1:29 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/index.html
>
> > "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
> > failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
> > that's been 10 years in the making.
>
> > "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
> > saying no,' Castelveter said."
>
> I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

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.

>
> > "She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
> > 1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
> > technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
> > noise for 600,000 people.'"
>
> I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
> delays.

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.

>
> I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.
>
> From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
> runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
> where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
> (or at least that's their ultimate origin).

That's one, but not the only one.

>
> Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
> and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
> day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
> traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
> routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
> resources.

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.

> I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
> nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
> inefficient.

Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through
volume.

> > "The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
> > aviation.
>
> > "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?


I dunno. Probably depends upon how you think "traffic" should be
measured. Take-offs? Passengers? Miles? Hours? Not to
mention what is meant by "private".

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:29:44 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/index.html
>
>> "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
>> failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
>> that's been 10 years in the making.
>>
>> "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
>> saying no,' Castelveter said."
>
>I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

>
>> "She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
>> 1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
>> technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
>> noise for 600,000 people.'"
>
>I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
>delays.

That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

>
>I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.
>
>From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
>runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
>where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
>(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

Part of the problem but certainly not all. And seasonal as well,
being worse in summer and less in the off months.

>
>Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
>and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
>day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
>traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
>routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
>resources.

Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do? Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be
less competitive and go up?

>
>I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
>nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
>inefficient.

They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

>
>> "The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
>> aviation.
>>
>> "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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

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.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:19:31 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:


>> Is this number correct?
>
>Failure of leadership at the FAA by politically correct
>appointees(WOMEN and BLACKS) who are clueless and incompetent
>
>That is the problem at the FAA. The culture is ****ed up
>
>The Civil rights staff is bigger than the Safety and
>Technical Staff
>
>"Kissing the Black Ass" supersedes safety and innovation at
>the FAA.
>
>It's HUD and FEMA not the FAA any longer
>
>A big Guvment Cluster ****


Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take the stupid bigots
with them at the same time.

[Mxsmanic]

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?

> 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.

> 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).

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
> changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
> GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

> That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
> allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

> Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
> regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
> you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

> Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
> and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

> They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
> heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

> "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.

> Woulkd you care to describe those.....

Flying many small planes instead of fewer large ones. I look forward to your
details on operating costs.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
>> changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
>> GPS allows closer flying.
>
>How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
>affected by noise)?

By flying different paths than now.

>
>> That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
>> allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.
>
>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?

>
>> Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
>> regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
>> you want to do?
>
>Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
>consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.

>
>> Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
>> and go up?
>
>Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
>the same thing.

Sure. Regulation does wonder. Deregulation did nothing for the
industry. Brilliant once again.

>
>> They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
>> heights.
>
>Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
>flying once with a larger aircraft.

You can babble this all you want. It hardly makes it true. And it's
not.

[John Kulp]

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.

[me[_2_]]

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.

[Rick Blaine]

(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

[Allen[_1_]]

"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.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[mrtravel]

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?

[mrtravel]

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.

[John Kulp]

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.

[John Kulp]

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.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:04 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:

><Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>the stupid bigots
>with them at the same time.
>
>
>I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks. There you
>go twisting words. I said get rid of the UNQUALIFIED
>Politically Correct appointees and Diversity experiments
>gone horribly wrong in Federal Government(See FEMA and FAA).
>

Just CYA bull**** of a bigot. You capitalized blacks and women and it
doesn't take a genius to see all your bias with this continued
bull****.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:36:47 -0700, mrtravel > wrote:

>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.

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

[Mxsmanic]

me writes:

> 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.

Hire more controllers.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

> Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
> can't track aircraft.

GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

> 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?

What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
making heavy use of GPS.

Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
possible.

> Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
> force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
> Brilliant.

As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
rather consider it self-evident.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

Yes, but GPS is useless for tracking, and that is by design.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy.

Redundancy won't help in a deliberate attempt.

> 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.

They don't have to have four engines to be big, and they are certainly not 100
times less efficient.

> Uuh. that was about 40 years ago ace when it was true.

So things change.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, NotPC > posted:

> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
> the stupid bigots
> with them at the same time.
>
>
> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
[...]
>
> The failure to see that the promotion of
> minorities and women into some key safety positions within
> the FAA was a mistake.
>
Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and how they
are not bigotted?

Neil

[Marty Shapiro]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "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.

Only the airlines pay no tax for fuel. All part 91 GA operations,
which includes corporate jets pay.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> 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.
>

Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
controllers. No ground control.

Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you may very
well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 12:57 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> me writes:
> > 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.
>
> Hire more controllers.

And concentrate them where they are needed.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

mrtravel wrote:
> 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?

No they pay fuel tax at a MUCH lower level.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> 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.

Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:08:38 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>--

Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:


>>
>> Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
>> or departure control.
>>
>
> Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
>they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
>Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
>who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
>controllers. No ground control.

These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
Those are major airports, which do have ATC.

>
> Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you may very
>well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
>clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
>sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.

Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
freight then?

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:45:17 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:04 -0400, NotPC >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>> the stupid bigots
>>> with them at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks. There you
>>> go twisting words. I said get rid of the UNQUALIFIED
>>> Politically Correct appointees and Diversity experiments
>>> gone horribly wrong in Federal Government(See FEMA and FAA).
>>>
>>
>> Just CYA bull**** of a bigot. You capitalized blacks and women and it
>> doesn't take a genius to see all your bias with this continued
>> bull****.
>
>CYA bull**** of a bigot. LOL!!
>Keep looking at life through your soda straw
>You are a sad example of a PC blinded sycophant
>
>Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

And you're just a complete moron as well as a bigot.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:47 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.
>
>Yes, but GPS is useless for tracking, and that is by design.

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

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.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:57:42 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>me writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>Hire more controllers.


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

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:16 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> By flying different paths than now.
>
>Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

Completely ridiculous. The problem is the runways are at capacity
GIVEN the ATC system/paths being used. Change the path to shorten the
paths and you increase capacity. Got that yet?

>
>> Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
>> can't track aircraft.
>
>GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
>it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

More complete nonsense. Go read the other post which actually tells
you what it does.

>
>> 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?
>
>What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
>GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
>potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
>making heavy use of GPS.

Oh, so a long experience pilot with a major carrier who uses these
systems every day doesn't know what he's talking about but you do huh?
Right. It's apparent from virtually all your posts that you have no
clue what you're talking about.

>
>Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
>possible.

Completely stupid comment as usual.

>
>> Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
>> force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
>> Brilliant.
>
>As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
>rather consider it self-evident.

Self-evident to a complete idiot. Fuel isn't dwindling. There is
plenty of it. CO2 footprints of aircraft ARE dwindling with more fuel
efficient engines, wing tips, etc.etc. See 787.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:03:19 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy.
>
>Redundancy won't help in a deliberate attempt.

Whatever this means.

>
>> 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.
>
>They don't have to have four engines to be big, and they are certainly not 100
>times less efficient.

I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
you are trying to make here.

>
>> Uuh. that was about 40 years ago ace when it was true.
>
>So things change.

Well, you occasionally show you have a clue about something. Not much
though.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, NotPC > posted:
>
>> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>> the stupid bigots
>> with them at the same time.
>>
>>
>> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
>[...]
>>
>> The failure to see that the promotion of
>> minorities and women into some key safety positions within
>> the FAA was a mistake.
>>
>Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and how they
>are not bigotted?
>

He has no interest in that. He is just trying to use what he calls
political correctness to cover his bigotry.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:20:26 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> Only the airlines pay no tax for fuel. All part 91 GA operations,
>which includes corporate jets pay.

I just looked up what airlines pay, and this is what it says:

Do U.S. airlines also pay fuel taxes?

At the federal level, airlines pay 4.4 cents for every gallon consumed
on a domestic flight. Of that amount, 4.3 cents goes to the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund while 0.1 cents supports the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Fund. In addition, in most states airlines pay a flat
rate per gallon or an ad valorem sales tax on the purchase of fuel. In
California, for example, airlines pay a fuel tax in excess of 8.0
percent of the price of jet fuel. So if the price of jet fuel
purchased in California were to double, our tax would double as well,
generating substantial revenue for the state's treasury.

Based on this, I don't know where the poster got the other taxes from
if he is applying them to airlines. We all know where the 4.4 cents
per gallon goes. In a trust fund that the government routinely robs
to use for everything except what it was passed for.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:08:38 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>> --
>
> Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
> You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
> product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
> gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.

Do you not even read what you respond to?

The post from Allen above shows you that the Jet Fuel Tax for GA is
$0.218/gal. The same fuel used by Airlines is $0.043/gal.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
> then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
> are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
> freight then?

They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the infrastructure
is there because of the airlines and their passengers. All those little
airplanes and even the CEO jets that are flying around can and do function
quite well without much less.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:22:06 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:

>Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, NotPC > posted:
>>
>>> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>> the stupid bigots
>>> with them at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
>> [...]
>>> The failure to see that the promotion of
>>> minorities and women into some key safety positions within
>>> the FAA was a mistake.
>>>
>> Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and how they
>> are not bigotted?
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
>If you identify or expose a minority in a safety job who is
>unqualified does that automatically make you a bigot?

Which you haven't done. And, yes, the way you expressed all this
obviously makes you a bigot.

>
>Are we so blinded by political correctness that we can't
>say "Hey, that Black Female is unqualified"? Is that now taboo?

Yeah. Saying that some person, whether black, a woman, etc. would not
be. If you had any proof for it.

>
>Blacks and Women who are unqualified or incompetent love to
>scream bigot or racism at the first hint of job action
>against them. It's their first line of defense or "Shield"

That's because idiots like you give them all the ammunition they need
to do so. Goes right over your head huh?

>
>Is that not wrong?

No. because you gave them all the ammunition they need to do so.

>
>Would you sit in the left seat and keep your mouth shut if
>the Black Female captain ****ed up or demonstrated poor
>piloting skills?

No, but not because the are black or female. Any proof for this
stupid assertion btw? Got any specific cases for us? I can show you
plenty of cases of drunk pilots (see NW). Don't know whether they
were white, black, male, female or whatever. And don't care.

>
>That is scary. Political Correctness reminds me so much of
>Communism. Shut up and accept it. Or maybe a better word is
>modern day tyranny.

Your mentality is what's scary. A good description is some obviously
bigoted idiot that is trying to disguise his bigotry with a bunch of
complete crap like this. And is too dumb to ever realize it
presumably.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:47:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:


>> Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
>> You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
>> product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
>> gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.
>
>Do you not even read what you respond to?
>
>The post from Allen above shows you that the Jet Fuel Tax for GA is
>$0.218/gal. The same fuel used by Airlines is $0.043/gal.
>
>

Yeah. That's why I said they pay whatever the tax is. I didn't
realize from his desciption that only the $0.43 tax was the only tax
airlines paid, though (it is actually $0.44). Who pays the second
tax? I thought that was airlines as well, but apparently not.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
>> then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
>> are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
>> freight then?
>
>They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the infrastructure
>is there because of the airlines and their passengers. All those little
>airplanes and even the CEO jets that are flying around can and do function
>quite well without much less.
>
>

Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
do. Is that not the case?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Kulp writes:
>
>> Completely silly, of course. It's called redunancy.
>
> Redundancy won't help in a deliberate attempt.
>
>> 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.
>
> They don't have to have four engines to be big, and they are certainly
> not 100 times less efficient.


How the fjukk would you know? You don't evenknow how a wing works!


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:20:26 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> Only the airlines pay no tax for fuel. All part 91 GA operations,
>> which includes corporate jets pay.
>
> I just looked up what airlines pay, and this is what it says:
>
> Do U.S. airlines also pay fuel taxes?
>
> At the federal level, airlines pay 4.4 cents for every gallon consumed
> on a domestic flight. Of that amount, 4.3 cents goes to the Airport
> and Airway Trust Fund while 0.1 cents supports the Leaking Underground
> Storage Tank Fund. In addition, in most states airlines pay a flat
> rate per gallon or an ad valorem sales tax on the purchase of fuel. In
> California, for example, airlines pay a fuel tax in excess of 8.0
> percent of the price of jet fuel. So if the price of jet fuel
> purchased in California were to double, our tax would double as well,
> generating substantial revenue for the state's treasury.
>
> Based on this, I don't know where the poster got the other taxes from
> if he is applying them to airlines. We all know where the 4.4 cents
> per gallon goes. In a trust fund that the government routinely robs
> to use for everything except what it was passed for.

OK and GA pays 19.3 cents for avgas and 21.8 cents for jet fuel. Everybody
pays the .1 cent for the LUSTF. Just to be clear 4.4 < 21.9

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft.
>>> But then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why,
>>> exactly, are the majors talking about their customers paying almost
>>> all the freight then?
>>
>> They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
>> infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
>> passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
>> are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.
>>
>>
>
> Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
> argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
> do. Is that not the case?

The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't pay a per
segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal fuel tax.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:22:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:


>OK and GA pays 19.3 cents for avgas and 21.8 cents for jet fuel. Everybody
>pays the .1 cent for the LUSTF. Just to be clear 4.4 < 21.9
>
>

So, then, the airlines do not pay the 21.8 cent tax?

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:28:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft.
>>>> But then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why,
>>>> exactly, are the majors talking about their customers paying almost
>>>> all the freight then?
>>>
>>> They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
>>> infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
>>> passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
>>> are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
>> argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
>> do. Is that not the case?
>
>The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't pay a per
>segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal fuel tax.
>
>

Nothing confusing about all this is there?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:22:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> OK and GA pays 19.3 cents for avgas and 21.8 cents for jet fuel.
>> Everybody pays the .1 cent for the LUSTF. Just to be clear 4.4 < 21.9
>>
>>
>
> So, then, the airlines do not pay the 21.8 cent tax?

No they pay 4.4 cents.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:40:39 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:45:17 -0400, NotPC >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:04 -0400, NotPC >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>>>> the stupid bigots
>>>>> with them at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks. There you
>>>>> go twisting words. I said get rid of the UNQUALIFIED
>>>>> Politically Correct appointees and Diversity experiments
>>>>> gone horribly wrong in Federal Government(See FEMA and FAA).
>>>>>
>>>> Just CYA bull**** of a bigot. You capitalized blacks and women and it
>>>> doesn't take a genius to see all your bias with this continued
>>>> bull****.
>>> CYA bull**** of a bigot. LOL!!
>>> Keep looking at life through your soda straw
>>> You are a sad example of a PC blinded sycophant
>>>
>>> Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners
>>
>> And you're just a complete moron as well as a bigot.
>
>Ditto for you on the moron and closed minded part

Yeah, I sure am close minded about moron bigots like you alright.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:28:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft.
>>>>> But then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why,
>>>>> exactly, are the majors talking about their customers paying
>>>>> almost all the freight then?
>>>>
>>>> They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
>>>> infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
>>>> passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
>>>> are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
>>> argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
>>> do. Is that not the case?
>>
>> The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't
>> pay a per segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal
>> fuel tax.
>>
>>
>
> Nothing confusing about all this is there?

No not really. It has worked for YEARS. It allows the airlines to pass on a
cost directly to their passengers without a whole lot of trouble because it
is a /pax tax.

If you think that is confusing take a look at the plans for GA user fees and
try to imagine how that tax would be collected.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, NotPC > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, NotPC > posted:
>>
>>> <Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>> the stupid bigots
>>> with them at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
>> [...]
>>> The failure to see that the promotion of
>>> minorities and women into some key safety positions within
>>> the FAA was a mistake.
>>>
>> Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and
>> how they are not bigotted?
>>
>
> If you identify or expose a minority in a safety job who is
> unqualified does that automatically make you a bigot?
>
It does, if you think their lack of qualifications has anything to do with
their status as a minority.

> Are we so blinded by political correctness that we can't
> say "Hey, that Black Female is unqualified"? Is that now taboo?
>
No, it's just ignorant, and exposes the speaker as a bigot. For example,
would you say, "Hey, that White Male is unqualified"? Would you think that
the white male's incompetence is a result of his being a white male?

I understand that these concepts are difficult for some people to grasp,
but it really is not about being PC.

Neil

[Rick Blaine]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>> Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
>> or departure control.
>
>Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

Exactly.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> John Kulp wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine >
> > wrote:
[snip]
> >> 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.
>
> Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

me wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine >
>>> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.
>
> An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
> number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
> many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
> that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
> wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.


That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC system WAY
more than the GA traffic does. What airport are you talking about?

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 2:09 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> me wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> John Kulp wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine >
> >>> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>>> 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.
>
> >> Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.
>
> > An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
> > number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
> > many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
> > that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
> > wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC system WAY
> more than the GA traffic does.

Of the traffic being discussed, I'd suspect that is not true. Not
sure
how to prove it however. For GA in general, I'd suspect the vast
majority
would PREFER no ATC.

> What airport are you talking about

DED

[Gig 601XL Builder]

me wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:09 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> me wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 9:29 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine >
>>>>> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.
>>
>>> An airport 'round these parts just went controlled because of the
>>> number of GA jets that requested it. It was over the objections of
>>> many of the actual more frequent users (VFR mostly). I suspect
>>> that the portion of the GA traffic being discussed (business jets)
>>> wouldn't "get along just fine" without some large amount of ATC.
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that airline traffic needs the ATC
>> system WAY more than the GA traffic does.
>
> Of the traffic being discussed, I'd suspect that is not true. Not
> sure
> how to prove it however. For GA in general, I'd suspect the vast
> majority
> would PREFER no ATC.
>
>> What airport are you talking about
>
> DED


The current AFD shows that Daytona handles approach and departure and
there's no tower freq listed
http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/se_56_30AUG2007.pdf and it looks like it seldom
averages more than 2 IFR operations per hour
http://flightaware.com/analysis/graphs/airport.rvt?airport=KDED.

But all that aside. Do you really think that the incremental cost to the ATC
system for the services provided to a Cessna Citation III are really over
$24/hour? If not then GA is paying it's fair share because the ATC system is
primarily there because of the airlines. Others use it because it is there.

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 2:38 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> me wrote:
[snip]
> > Of the traffic being discussed, I'd suspect that is not true. Not
> > sure
> > how to prove it however. For GA in general, I'd suspect the vast
> > majority
> > would PREFER no ATC.
>
> >> What airport are you talking about
>
> > DED
>
> The current AFD shows that Daytona handles approach and departure and
> there's no tower freq listedhttp://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/se_56_30AUG2007.pdfand it looks like it seldom
> averages more than 2 IFR operations per hourhttp://flightaware.com/analysis/graphs/airport.rvt?airport=KDED.

It was just approved last year. Engineering and planning are going
on now. Not sure they even have an announced opening date.

>
> But all that aside. Do you really think that the incremental cost to the ATC
> system for the services provided to a Cessna Citation III are really over
> $24/hour? If not then GA is paying it's fair share because the ATC system is
> primarily there because of the airlines. Others use it because it is there

Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
that
GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
business jet traffic that just isn't true.

[mrtravel]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, NotPC > posted:
>
>
>><Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>the stupid bigots
>>with them at the same time.
>>
>>
>>I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
>
> [...]
>
>>The failure to see that the promotion of
>>minorities and women into some key safety positions within
>>the FAA was a mistake.
>>
>
> Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and how they
> are not bigotted?
>
> Neil
>
>

I don't condone bigots, but there is evidence, at least in other areas,
of standard being lowered so that minority races and women could be
promoted in certain positions or to permit them entry into certain
educational institutions in order to meet a quota.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

me wrote:

>
> Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
> that
> GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
> business jet traffic that just isn't true.

If it wasn't for concern over running all the airlines up there ATC wouldn't
be needed or what was needed could be paid for out of FAA petty cash.

There are 5 or 6 jets based at my home field (ELD) plus there is almost
always at least one out of town jet on the ramp during the week and we have
5 commuter airline flights per day. No one has ever even thought of it being
a towered airport. And it looks like we have many more IFR operations than
DED http://flightaware.com/analysis/graphs/airport.rvt?airport=KELD

Now, you may have a TON of none IFR ops and the jet guys bullied through a
tower to deal with that.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:07:35 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:28:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:50:43 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft.
>>>>>> But then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why,
>>>>>> exactly, are the majors talking about their customers paying
>>>>>> almost all the freight then?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are paying for the services they are using. Most of the
>>>>> infrastructure is there because of the airlines and their
>>>>> passengers. All those little airplanes and even the CEO jets that
>>>>> are flying around can and do function quite well without much less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, the issue as I understand it is user fees, not fuel tax. The
>>>> argument is that GA doesn't pay these and all the airline passengers
>>>> do. Is that not the case?
>>>
>>> The airlines pay a lesser fuel tax and per segment tax. GA doesn't
>>> pay a per segment tax but this is made up for with a higher per gal
>>> fuel tax.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nothing confusing about all this is there?
>
>No not really. It has worked for YEARS. It allows the airlines to pass on a
>cost directly to their passengers without a whole lot of trouble because it
>is a /pax tax.

It is if you're not used to it.

>
>If you think that is confusing take a look at the plans for GA user fees and
>try to imagine how that tax would be collected.
>
>

If the government could collect the taxes they have now, they wouldn't
need to have more

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:22:41 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:


>> No, it's just ignorant, and exposes the speaker as a bigot. For example,
>> would you say, "Hey, that White Male is unqualified"? Would you think that
>> the white male's incompetence is a result of his being a white male?
>>
>> I understand that these concepts are difficult for some people to grasp,
>> but it really is not about being PC.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
>I agree on your statement about white males but here is the
>problem. IF? you say that "Person" (Who happens to be a
>Black Female) is unqualified or incompetent and it comes
>from a white male manager they will most of the time scream
>racism and bigot like you have. It will prevent
>accountability and most likely they will be "Accommodated"
>or promoted into a higher level of incompetency(See FAA
>Management)

Because all the guys like you give them all the ammunition they need
to do so?

>
>The "White Male" does not have that luxury of being shielded
>by the PC Police. If the white male is incompetent or
>unqualified, he will most likely be removed, demoted, or
>fired. He has no minority status to shield his HR position.
>
>That concept is difficult to explain or understand by PC

Which don't even exist anywhere, of course, except in your midget
mind. Never met one in my life.


>robots like you. IAW, you are most likely a bigot toward
>white males and have been brainwashed to "Kiss the Black
>Ass" and ignore or circumvent or accommodate incompetent
>minorities in the work place.

Most likely he is a normal human being instead of one like you with
their bigoted heads planted right up their fat asses.

>
>Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

Racial bigots-morons with no manners

>
>BTW, Is it OK to call you a bigot toward white males?

Wouldn't make any difference since everyone just laughs at idiots like
you anyway

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> me wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I'm not commenting upon all of GA. The comment was made
>> that
>> GA jets would "get along fine" without ATC and I think for the true
>> business jet traffic that just isn't true.
>
> If it wasn't for concern over running all the airlines up there ATC
> wouldn't be needed or what was needed could be paid for out of FAA petty
> cash.
>
Thanks...I needed a good laugh!!

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:19:11 -0700, mrtravel > wrote:

>Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, NotPC > posted:
>>
>>
>>><Snip> Yeah, get rid of all the women and blacks. And take
>>>the stupid bigots
>>>with them at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>>I did not say get rid of all the women and blacks.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>The failure to see that the promotion of
>>>minorities and women into some key safety positions within
>>>the FAA was a mistake.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you can explain the difference between these remarks, and how they
>> are not bigotted?
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
>I don't condone bigots, but there is evidence, at least in other areas,
>of standard being lowered so that minority races and women could be
>promoted in certain positions or to permit them entry into certain
>educational institutions in order to meet a quota.

That's called affirmative action and is true, but that doesn't make
them incompetent or dangerous as this moron is saying

[Allen[_1_]]

"John Kulp" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:47:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
>>> You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
>>> product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
>>> gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.
>>
>>Do you not even read what you respond to?
>>
>>The post from Allen above shows you that the Jet Fuel Tax for GA is
>>$0.218/gal. The same fuel used by Airlines is $0.043/gal.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah. That's why I said they pay whatever the tax is. I didn't
> realize from his desciption that only the $0.43 tax was the only tax
> airlines paid, though (it is actually $0.44). Who pays the second
> tax? I thought that was airlines as well, but apparently not.

You need to put the decimal point in the correct spot - $.044 (four and
four-tenths cents) per gallon for airlines. The segment and ticket tax is
collected from the passengers, not paid by the airlines.

Here is the link to the table I posted:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/trust_fund/ the link to the
spreadsheet is in the first paragraph.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground
>>> control, or departure control.
>>>
>>
>> Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you
>> are IFR,
>>they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United
>>States. Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and
>>many of those who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or
>>ground controllers. No ground control.
>
> These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
> Those are major airports, which do have ATC.
>
And it is because of the AIRLINE traffic at those airports that ATC is
needed there. GA is less than 5% of the operations at these airports. It
is not GA that wants to have 59 operations at ORD from 8 PM to 8:14 PM
every day. It is the airlines.

>>
>> Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you
>> may very
>>well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
>>clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
>>sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.
>
> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
> then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
> are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
> freight then?

Because the majors are in a panic over the VLJ and fractional jets.
The potential of the VLJ to siphon off the first & business class
customers, which is where the profit is, terrifies the majors. This whole
fee talk is about how to price these flights out of the market so the
premium customers will continue to fly with the airlines.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing confusing about all this is there?
>>
>> No not really. It has worked for YEARS. It allows the airlines to
>> pass on a cost directly to their passengers without a whole lot of
>> trouble because it is a /pax tax.
>
> It is if you're not used to it.
>

Well it has been there for years so the only folks that aren't used to it
are those that don't fly on airlines in the USA.


>>
>> If you think that is confusing take a look at the plans for GA user
>> fees and try to imagine how that tax would be collected.
>>
>>
>
> If the government could collect the taxes they have now, they wouldn't
> need to have more

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:01:38 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:


>>
>> I don't condone bigots, but there is evidence, at least in other areas,
>> of standard being lowered so that minority races and women could be
>> promoted in certain positions or to permit them entry into certain
>> educational institutions in order to meet a quota.
>
>
>The FAA Academy in Oklahoma City(Proven Known Fact)lowered
>entry requirements and testing requirements soon after
>Clinton's non-aviation background PC appointee(Jane
>Garvey)was crowned FAA Administrator.

Where? Kindly prove it rather than just state something.

>
>The reason? A huge percentage of women and blacks could not
>pass the technical courses at the FAA Academy. Solution?
>Lower the Standards.

Proof?

>
>Those diversity experiments of the early 90's and AL Gore's
>"Reinventing Government" a.k.a. PC mandates to purge white
>males from the FAA are now in high level positions in the
>FAA and Government. Some of those people (Mostly Black
>Females) could not find their ass with both hands. However,
>they are making major decisions that effect the FAA and ATC
>each day.

Proof?

>
>Fast Forward. The FAA is a mess and airline delays are at a
>record and union relationships and employee morale is a mess
>in the FAA.(Under Female leadership) Did it work? Those
>Diversity experiments?

The FAA has been a mess since I got my pilot's license which was 40
years ago. Long before any of what you assert was true.

>
>The evidence shows NO. It has been an unmitigated HR
>failure. Will it be fixed? NO. Why? Because white male
>sycophants in fear for their silly little jobs and others
>will not allow accountability of minorities because they are
>afraid they will scream racism and bigot.(See John Kulp)
>They are scared. You can also reference the Jesse Jackson
>and Al Sharpton school of race card extortion.

What evidence? This is just a lot of hand waving claims for which you
have provided exactly NO evidence. No doubt because you, like the
other meathead, have NONE. And you, like he, are also a bigot,
because you are accusing whole classes if things where whole classes
don't do anything together. Individuals do or don't. Got that?

>
>So now our Federal Government is filled to the rim with dead
>wood and layers of personnel that do what? Draw a check. No
>more and no less. FEMA the FAA and countless other
>Government organizations are a mess.

Mindless bigotry once again. With no proof of anything.

>
>A big reason for that is they started using skin color and
>sex and social numbers rather than qualifications to hire
>and promote. Now we are paying the price. And will be paying
>for a long time to come. Our Federal Government operates
>with the same efficiency as a drunken tree sloth.

You have no evidence and/or proof of any of this. It is just your
mindless bigotry blathering.

>
>One last question. Exactly what is a minority? Define the
>term in 2007 language. I do know the City of Atlanta for
>example is a city that is mostly Black and votes all Black
>but still receives millions of tax dollars from IRS goon
>squads for disadvantaged and minority hiring.

Mindlessly stupid. The IRS hands out refunds and nothing more.
Congress does this and they all do it. See Ted Stevens, AK, Daniel
Inouye, HW, Robert Byrd, WV for starters. What minority do they
belong to moron?

>
>But WHITE people are the minority in Atlanta. What is the
>deal with that???

The deal is that there are fewer of them living there than blacks
apparently. That's the deal.

>
>Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners
>"Stop Kissing the Black Ass"

Your head is so far up your ass it couldn't be kissed anyway

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:


>> Wouldn't make any difference since everyone just laughs at idiots like
>> you anyway
>>
>
>All you can do is name call rather than converse with
>intelligence. You must have a PhD from the Jesse Jackson
>School of Race Card Extortion. Congratulation's! your
>ignorance is exposed for all too see sir.

You haven't shown one ounce of intelligence in your raving, ranting
posts. And certainly no proof. You have simply blathered out the KKK
mantra of bull****.

>
>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.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:18:24 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote:

>"John Kulp" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:47:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is used for multiple purposes.
>>>> You don't tax industries for fuel per se, but all users of the
>>>> product. I don't think kerosene has every been taxed much, unlike
>>>> gas. Everyone pays whatever the tax is on this.
>>>
>>>Do you not even read what you respond to?
>>>
>>>The post from Allen above shows you that the Jet Fuel Tax for GA is
>>>$0.218/gal. The same fuel used by Airlines is $0.043/gal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. That's why I said they pay whatever the tax is. I didn't
>> realize from his desciption that only the $0.43 tax was the only tax
>> airlines paid, though (it is actually $0.44). Who pays the second
>> tax? I thought that was airlines as well, but apparently not.
>
>You need to put the decimal point in the correct spot - $.044 (four and
>four-tenths cents) per gallon for airlines. The segment and ticket tax is
>collected from the passengers, not paid by the airlines.
>

That's true. I've been pushing too many numbers today.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:36:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground
>>>> control, or departure control.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you
>>> are IFR,
>>>they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United
>>>States. Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and
>>>many of those who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or
>>>ground controllers. No ground control.
>>
>> These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
>> Those are major airports, which do have ATC.
>>
> And it is because of the AIRLINE traffic at those airports that ATC is
>needed there. GA is less than 5% of the operations at these airports. It
>is not GA that wants to have 59 operations at ORD from 8 PM to 8:14 PM
>every day. It is the airlines.

Sure that's true alright. I was just commenting on where ATC is
located, that's all.

>
>>>
>>> Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you
>>> may very
>>>well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
>>>clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
>>>sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.
>>
>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
>> then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
>> are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
>> freight then?
>
> Because the majors are in a panic over the VLJ and fractional jets.
>The potential of the VLJ to siphon off the first & business class
>customers, which is where the profit is, terrifies the majors. This whole
>fee talk is about how to price these flights out of the market so the
>premium customers will continue to fly with the airlines.

Where does this come from? This has already happened and the majors
are selling plenty of business and first seats anyway. I don't see
them panicking, just adjusting to changing market conditions,

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:09:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing confusing about all this is there?
>>>
>>> No not really. It has worked for YEARS. It allows the airlines to
>>> pass on a cost directly to their passengers without a whole lot of
>>> trouble because it is a /pax tax.
>>
>> It is if you're not used to it.
>>
>
>Well it has been there for years so the only folks that aren't used to it
>are those that don't fly on airlines in the USA.

That's true. I have known about it for years because it gets
routinely ripped off to fund the general deficit instead of going to
airport improvement. I didn't know the amount, however.

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:36:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground
>>>>> control, or departure control.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you
>>>> are IFR,
>>>>they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United
>>>>States. Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and
>>>>many of those who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local
>>>>or ground controllers. No ground control.
>>>
>>> These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
>>> Those are major airports, which do have ATC.
>>>
>> And it is because of the AIRLINE traffic at those airports
>> that ATC is
>>needed there. GA is less than 5% of the operations at these airports.
>> It is not GA that wants to have 59 operations at ORD from 8 PM to
>>8:14 PM every day. It is the airlines.
>
> Sure that's true alright. I was just commenting on where ATC is
> located, that's all.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you
>>>> may very
>>>>well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
>>>>clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once
>>>>at sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft.
>>> But then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why,
>>> exactly, are the majors talking about their customers paying almost
>>> all the freight then?
>>
>> Because the majors are in a panic over the VLJ and fractional
>> jets.
>>The potential of the VLJ to siphon off the first & business class
>>customers, which is where the profit is, terrifies the majors. This
>>whole fee talk is about how to price these flights out of the market
>>so the premium customers will continue to fly with the airlines.
>
> Where does this come from? This has already happened and the majors
> are selling plenty of business and first seats anyway. I don't see
> them panicking, just adjusting to changing market conditions,
>

Fractional jets are here and they are starting to siphon some business
away from the airlines. The VLJ's aren't here yet. The projections for
the VLJ market, if correct, will put a severe dent in the airline's premium
passenger traffic. Take a trip of say 1,000 miles or so. You can go to
your nearby local airport and get a VLJ to fly direct to a nearby local
airport at your destination. No requirement to be at the airport 2 hours
before departure, no restrictions on liquids in your carry-on baggage, no
TSA, no long drive to/from the airport served by the major, no dealing with
connections at the hub, and the VLJ air taxi comes/goes on your schedule,
not the airline's. The airlines can't do any of this and that's why they
are terrified. The only way they can compete is to make it prohibatively
expensive to fly on a VLJ.

Look at an area like White Plains, NY with all the corporate HQs
there. How many of the business / first class passengers would rather go
to HPN and fly directly to their destination vs. having to drive to LGA,
JFK, or EWR? Only the top executives get the company jet, the others need
to go via airlines. If they had VLJ service at a cost of a first class
ticket, would they bother to go via the major?

How many first or business class tickets are really sold? I've been
on flights where the first class cabin was full but most passengers were
there on a mileage or frequent flyer upgrades. Those passengers who did
pay full fare would be more than happy to fly on a VLJ and avoid the
airline hassle completly, and those are the passengers the airlines are
worried about.

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.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jon]

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!

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:50:33 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:


>
> Fractional jets are here and they are starting to siphon some business
>away from the airlines. The VLJ's aren't here yet. The projections for
>the VLJ market, if correct, will put a severe dent in the airline's premium
>passenger traffic. Take a trip of say 1,000 miles or so. You can go to
>your nearby local airport and get a VLJ to fly direct to a nearby local
>airport at your destination. No requirement to be at the airport 2 hours
>before departure, no restrictions on liquids in your carry-on baggage, no
>TSA, no long drive to/from the airport served by the major, no dealing with
>connections at the hub, and the VLJ air taxi comes/goes on your schedule,
>not the airline's. The airlines can't do any of this and that's why they
>are terrified. The only way they can compete is to make it prohibatively
>expensive to fly on a VLJ.

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.

>
> Look at an area like White Plains, NY with all the corporate HQs
>there. How many of the business / first class passengers would rather go
>to HPN and fly directly to their destination vs. having to drive to LGA,
>JFK, or EWR? Only the top executives get the company jet, the others need
>to go via airlines. If they had VLJ service at a cost of a first class
>ticket, would they bother to go via the major?

They presumably wouldn't which is why the majors are doing what I
described above. Two different markets entirely.

>
> How many first or business class tickets are really sold? I've been
>on flights where the first class cabin was full but most passengers were
>there on a mileage or frequent flyer upgrades. Those passengers who did
>pay full fare would be more than happy to fly on a VLJ and avoid the
>airline hassle completly, and those are the passengers the airlines are
>worried about.

No they're not for the reasons I give above. There are still plenty
of full paying premium passengers which the majors are competing for,
not these guys.

>
> 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.

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:50:33 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Fractional jets are here and they are starting to siphon some
>> business
>>away from the airlines. The VLJ's aren't here yet. The projections
>>for the VLJ market, if correct, will put a severe dent in the
>>airline's premium passenger traffic. Take a trip of say 1,000 miles
>>or so. You can go to your nearby local airport and get a VLJ to fly
>>direct to a nearby local airport at your destination. No requirement
>>to be at the airport 2 hours before departure, no restrictions on
>>liquids in your carry-on baggage, no TSA, no long drive to/from the
>>airport served by the major, no dealing with connections at the hub,
>>and the VLJ air taxi comes/goes on your schedule, not the airline's.
>>The airlines can't do any of this and that's why they are terrified.
>>The only way they can compete is to make it prohibatively expensive to
>>fly on a VLJ.
>
> 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.

>>
>> Look at an area like White Plains, NY with all the corporate
>> HQs
>>there. How many of the business / first class passengers would rather
>>go to HPN and fly directly to their destination vs. having to drive to
>>LGA, JFK, or EWR? Only the top executives get the company jet, the
>>others need to go via airlines. If they had VLJ service at a cost of
>>a first class ticket, would they bother to go via the major?
>
> They presumably wouldn't which is why the majors are doing what I
> described above. Two different markets entirely.
>
>>
>> How many first or business class tickets are really sold?
>> I've been
>>on flights where the first class cabin was full but most passengers
>>were there on a mileage or frequent flyer upgrades. Those passengers
>>who did pay full fare would be more than happy to fly on a VLJ and
>>avoid the airline hassle completly, and those are the passengers the
>>airlines are worried about.
>
> No they're not for the reasons I give above. There are still plenty
> of full paying premium passengers which the majors are competing for,
> not these guys.
>
>>
>> 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.

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.

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.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[John Kulp]

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?

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airlines.scheduling/index.html
>
>> "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
>> failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
>> that's been 10 years in the making.
>>
>> "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
>> saying no,' Castelveter said."
>
>I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.
>

Well, airports themselves don't fly, but concerning approach paths, how about
the fact that non-overlay GPS approaches use different paths from other
existing approaches. Does that make it more clear?

[Marty Shapiro]

(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)

[Jon]

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?

[Jon]

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

[John Kulp]

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.

[John Kulp]

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.

[WhoGivesAFig?]

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

[John Kulp]

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.

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[John Kulp]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> Completely ridiculous. The problem is the runways are at capacity
> GIVEN the ATC system/paths being used. Change the path to shorten the
> paths and you increase capacity. Got that yet?

How do you change arrival and departure paths without moving runways? MLS is
a dead letter now and GPS isn't precise enough to provide ILS-equivalent
landing capability, so you're stuck with straight-in approaches, aligned with
runways.

> Oh, so a long experience pilot with a major carrier who uses these
> systems every day doesn't know what he's talking about but you do huh?

Possibly. Pilots know how to fly planes, but they don't have to know how
planes work. In the old days, before computers did most of the dirty work,
planes had flight engineers, who _did_ know how the planes worked. Today, a
computer handles most things. In both cases, the pilots didn't have to know,
and it would have been quite an extra burden on them to try to train them,
anyway. You don't have to know how a FMS works in order to use one.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
> you are trying to make here.

Oh, I think a lot of people understand it. Don't assume that everyone has the
same difficulties that you (apparently) do.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Well, airports themselves don't fly, but concerning approach paths, how about
> the fact that non-overlay GPS approaches use different paths from other
> existing approaches. Does that make it more clear?

What's clear is that GPS cannot come close to matching the precision of ILS.
Augmentation systems essentially reproduce many of the disadvantages (and
advantages) of ILS.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Airbus writes:

> > Well, airports themselves don't fly, but concerning approach paths, how about
> > the fact that non-overlay GPS approaches use different paths from other
> > existing approaches. Does that make it more clear?

> What's clear is that GPS cannot come close to matching the precision of ILS.
> Augmentation systems essentially reproduce many of the disadvantages (and
> advantages) of ILS.

Such as?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Kulp]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:09:38 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>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.

That stupid. The whole system being built is a GPS tracking system to
space and direct flight paths. Your comments are completely erroneous
and stupid. Which, of course, won't stop you from babbling on. Just
watcj.

[John Kulp]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:12:25 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> Completely ridiculous. The problem is the runways are at capacity
>> GIVEN the ATC system/paths being used. Change the path to shorten the
>> paths and you increase capacity. Got that yet?
>
>How do you change arrival and departure paths without moving runways? MLS is
>a dead letter now and GPS isn't precise enough to provide ILS-equivalent
>landing capability, so you're stuck with straight-in approaches, aligned with
>runways.

You're completely dense. You change the flight paths. They're in the
AIR not on the GROUND like the runways. Got that?

>
>> Oh, so a long experience pilot with a major carrier who uses these
>> systems every day doesn't know what he's talking about but you do huh?
>
>Possibly. Pilots know how to fly planes, but they don't have to know how
>planes work. In the old days, before computers did most of the dirty work,
>planes had flight engineers, who _did_ know how the planes worked. Today, a
>computer handles most things. In both cases, the pilots didn't have to know,
>and it would have been quite an extra burden on them to try to train them,
>anyway. You don't have to know how a FMS works in order to use one.

Boy, are you a complete moron. The pilots don't know how the planes
work. They just sit there like robots staring out the window while
some ghost flies them. They use GPS overseas all the time but they
don't know how to use them. What idiocy.

[John Kulp]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:14:06 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>John Kulp writes:
>
>> I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
>> you are trying to make here.
>
>Oh, I think a lot of people understand it. Don't assume that everyone has the
>same difficulties that you (apparently) do.

Your drivel is so senseless Alice in Wonderland wouldn't have a clue
what you're talking about.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote

> 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.

As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

Makes sense to me, on paper, at least! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
> when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
> will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

It depends on how much of the congestion is en-route, and how much is in
approach and departure. Free flight would help in the former case, but it
wouldn't make much different in the latter case.

Additionally, although truly random free flight would eliminate en-route
congestion, it would also raise costs, since most random, free-flight routes
are going to be longer than the optimal route. There would be a tendency for
everyone to try to fly the shortest route, and then the congestion would
return.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
> boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

Not quite. The GPS is a receive-only system. It allows users to determine
their positions without transmitting anything to anyone, which provides
stealth and also gives the system unlimited user capacity. There isn't any
way to get a transmission function out of GPS. All tracking systems are more
complex systems in which GPS merely plays one part.

This was all by design. The DoD wanted the capacity and didn't want their
troups to give themselves away every time they checked their positions.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> That stupid. The whole system being built is a GPS tracking system to
> space and direct flight paths.

As I've already explained, GPS does not provide tracking. What is being built
is a system that uses GPS to determine position, but that is all. The rest is
independent of GPS.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> Why don't you read what he wrote? "A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses
> the Global Positioning System ..."

I did, but he apparently did not, since he seems to think that the GPS itself
provides a tracking function, which is a common and rather serious
misconception. Nothing in GPS allows a user to be tracked.

[Mxsmanic]

John Kulp writes:

> You're completely dense. You change the flight paths. They're in the
> AIR not on the GROUND like the runways. Got that?

During take-off and especially approach, the flight paths are necessarily
aligned with the runways, since aircraft cannot instantly turn after leaving
the runway or instantly turn just before touching down. Thus, there are
flight paths that are inextricably linked to runway positions. The only way
to change them is to reposition the runways.

> The pilots don't know how the planes work.

Apart from the most general principles, yes.

> They just sit there like robots staring out the window while
> some ghost flies them.

No, but during automated phases of a flight (which means most phases, today),
they don't have a lot to do. Still, that's better than requiring them to keep
their hands on the controls for eight hours at a stretch, in a number of ways.

> They use GPS overseas all the time but they don't know how to use them.

They use GPS everywhere, but they don't have to know how it works to use it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Such as?

Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
fully replaced.

[john]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Such as?
>
> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
> fully replaced.
Perhaps you should use some of your vaunted research skills to see what
the accuracy of WAAS is. It's better then a ILS and the WAaS approachs
have the same minimums as the ILS approachs.

[Mxsmanic]

john writes:

> Perhaps you should use some of your vaunted research skills to see what
> the accuracy of WAAS is. It's better then a ILS and the WAaS approachs
> have the same minimums as the ILS approachs.

I have indeed done the research. The whole reason for LAAS is that WAAS isn't
good enough to replace ILS entirely. WAAS can match some Category I
performance. LAAS will be needed to get to Category III, and since you need
Cat IIIc to replace ILS, WAAS certainly isn't going to do it, and LAAS
probably won't do it for a while yet.

If you think that WAAS is better than ILS, you need to tell the government
about it right away, so they can save billions of dollars of development costs
on LAAS.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:

> > As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
> > when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
> > will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

> It depends on how much of the congestion is en-route, and how much is in
> approach and departure. Free flight would help in the former case, but it
> wouldn't make much different in the latter case.

> Additionally, although truly random free flight would eliminate en-route
> congestion, it would also raise costs, since most random, free-flight routes
> are going to be longer than the optimal route. There would be a tendency for
> everyone to try to fly the shortest route, and then the congestion would
> return.

Babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
> > boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

> Not quite. The GPS is a receive-only system. It allows users to determine
> their positions without transmitting anything to anyone, which provides
> stealth and also gives the system unlimited user capacity. There isn't any
> way to get a transmission function out of GPS. All tracking systems are more
> complex systems in which GPS merely plays one part.

> This was all by design. The DoD wanted the capacity and didn't want their
> troups to give themselves away every time they checked their positions.

Point totally missed.

GPS was designed to be a locating system, period.

The fact that a locating system doesn't provide user tracking or
warm up muffins is irrelevant.

The US military (and probably all the other major militaries) have
troop tracking systems.

And guess what, the tracking systems don't provide location data or
warm muffins either. GPS provides the location data.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Such as?

> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
> fully replaced.

What about multipath?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WhoGivesAFig?]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> Such as?
>
>> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
>> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
>> fully replaced.
>
> What about multipath?
>


LAAS uses one frequency to upload the corrections necessary
for CAT 2 and 3. IAW, one VHF uplink.

Jam it or lose it and you lost all your CAT 2 or 3

Single Thread is not good

[WhoGivesAFig?]

WhoGivesAFig? wrote:
> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>
>>>> Such as?
>>
>>> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS
>>> requires this,
>>> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is
>>> to be
>>> fully replaced.
>>
>> What about multipath?
>>
>
>
> LAAS uses one frequency to upload the corrections necessary for CAT 2
> and 3. IAW, one VHF uplink.
>
> Jam it or lose it and you lost all your CAT 2 or 3
>
> Single Thread is not good


Look at this link

Notice the VHF uplink

JUST ONE

Not good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Area_Augmentation_System

Maybe a LAAS and a JPALS as a backup may be a good
redundancy plan??

I say it must be done that way if you remove the ILS systems

[[email protected]]

WhoGivesAFig? > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >
> >>> Such as?
> >
> >> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
> >> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
> >> fully replaced.
> >
> > What about multipath?
> >


> LAAS uses one frequency to upload the corrections necessary
> for CAT 2 and 3. IAW, one VHF uplink.

> Jam it or lose it and you lost all your CAT 2 or 3

> Single Thread is not good

So, if you don't have LAAS and the ILS goes tits up, what's the backup?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WhoGivesAFig?]

wrote:
> WhoGivesAFig? > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>>>> Such as?
>>>> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
>>>> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
>>>> fully replaced.
>>> What about multipath?
>>>
>
>
>> LAAS uses one frequency to upload the corrections necessary
>> for CAT 2 and 3. IAW, one VHF uplink.
>
>> Jam it or lose it and you lost all your CAT 2 or 3
>
>> Single Thread is not good
>
> So, if you don't have LAAS and the ILS goes tits up, what's the backup?
>
>

My vote would be JPALS. The LAAS version of TACAN

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> GPS was designed to be a locating system, period.

It's a system that allows users to locate themselves. It doesn't provide any
information to third parties.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> How interesting. Transponders transmit the planes location obtained from a GPS
> receiver.

Transponders are not part of GPS. I can write my location on a notepad, but
that doesn't make my notepad part of GPS, either.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What about multipath?

What about it? It's a problem in every case.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > GPS was designed to be a locating system, period.

> It's a system that allows users to locate themselves. It doesn't provide any
> information to third parties.

No ****?

How about classical music, weather, satellite photos, talk radio,
wireless internet, baseball scores?

As I said, GPS was designed to be a locating system, as in where the
**** am I, period.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

WhoGivesAFig? > wrote:
> wrote:
> > WhoGivesAFig? > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>> writes:
> >>>>> Such as?
> >>>> Such as the need for local transmitters at every airport. LAAS requires this,
> >>>> and since WAAS cannot match ILS precision, LAAS is required if ILS is to be
> >>>> fully replaced.
> >>> What about multipath?
> >>>
> >
> >
> >> LAAS uses one frequency to upload the corrections necessary
> >> for CAT 2 and 3. IAW, one VHF uplink.
> >
> >> Jam it or lose it and you lost all your CAT 2 or 3
> >
> >> Single Thread is not good
> >
> > So, if you don't have LAAS and the ILS goes tits up, what's the backup?
> >
> >

> My vote would be JPALS. The LAAS version of TACAN

And if you don't have that?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > What about multipath?

> What about it? It's a problem in every case.

Really?

Multipath is only a problem in analog systems where the information
is in phase differences, like an ILS system.

There is also the issue that ILS is AM and thus can't rely on
discriminator capture.

But I'm sure you know all about EM propagation theory, information
theory, and modulation theory.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[mrtravel]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>GPS was designed to be a locating system, period.
>
>
> It's a system that allows users to locate themselves. It doesn't provide any
> information to third parties.

Imagine what would happen if the GPS infornmation could automatically be
transmitted somewhere else........... Oh wait, that does happen.

[Mxsmanic]

mrtravel writes:

> Imagine what would happen if the GPS infornmation could automatically be
> transmitted somewhere else........... Oh wait, that does happen.

Not within GPS. There are systems that contain GPS as one component that
transmit such information using other components of the system. But again,
that's independent of GPS.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Multipath is only a problem in analog systems where the information
> is in phase differences, like an ILS system.

All radio systems are analog. In fact, all physical systems are analog.
Multipath is a problem for all sorts of systems.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Multipath is only a problem in analog systems where the information
> > is in phase differences, like an ILS system.

> All radio systems are analog. In fact, all physical systems are analog.
> Multipath is a problem for all sorts of systems.

Wrong answer on all counts.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Multipath is only a problem in analog systems where the information
>> is in phase differences, like an ILS system.
>
> All radio systems are analog.

Oops, surprise, wrong again

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> mrtravel writes:
>
>> Imagine what would happen if the GPS infornmation could automatically
>> be transmitted somewhere else........... Oh wait, that does happen.
>
> Not within GPS. There are systems that contain GPS as one component
> that transmit such information using other components of the system.
> But again, that's independent of GPS.
>

Clueless fjukkwit.

Tell us about banruptcy court!

that's one thing you ought to know something about.

bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Kulp writes:
>
>> You're completely dense. You change the flight paths. They're in the
>> AIR not on the GROUND like the runways. Got that?
>
> During take-off and especially approach, the flight paths are
> necessarily aligned with the runways, since aircraft cannot instantly
> turn after leaving the runway or instantly turn just before touching
> down. Thus, there are flight paths that are inextricably linked to
> runway positions. The only way to change them is to reposition the
> runways.
>
>> The pilots don't know how the planes work.
>
> Apart from the most general principles, yes.
>
>> They just sit there like robots staring out the window while
>> some ghost flies them.
>
> No, but during automated phases of a flight (which means most phases,
> today), they don't have a lot to do. Still, that's better than
> requiring them to keep their hands on the controls for eight hours at
> a stretch, in a number of ways.
>
>> They use GPS overseas all the time but they don't know how to use
>> them.
>
> They use GPS everywhere, but they don't have to know how it works to
> use it.
>

More unadulterated bull ****.

Take a look on YouTube and see the 747 landing at the old Kai Tak
airport in Hong Kong. He is turning at the runway numbers to land in the
TDZ.

On an IFR departure, turns can commence at 400' AGL. It is going to
be a short runway on a very hot day at MGTOW not to be 400' AGL by end of
runway. Hell, I fly a small plane out of a 3,000' runway and can be 800'
AGL by the end of runway. I don't have anywhere near the climb performance
of a jetliner.

You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a reason
aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
> aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a reason
> aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.

There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very tiring to
hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you need not grip them
continously, but neither can you ignore them for very long if you have no
autopilot.

[John Kulp]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:55:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
>> aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a reason
>> aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.
>
>There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very tiring to
>hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you need not grip them
>continously, but neither can you ignore them for very long if you have no
>autopilot.

This babbling idiot is going to continue posting this nonsense as long
as anyone keeps responding to his nonsense. So I, for one, am just
going to stop.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:

> > You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
> > aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a reason
> > aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.

> There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very tiring to
> hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you need not grip them
> continously, but neither can you ignore them for very long if you have no
> autopilot.

You are still a babbling, know nothing of the real world, arrogant, idiot.

One of the first things my instructor did during training was to have
me fly a short cross country with my arms folded across my chest
maintaining course with rudder after trimming out the airplane.

Unless in turbulance, I typically have two fingers on the yoke most
of the time.

And I have an autopilot which is seldom turned on.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Kulp]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:55:03 GMT, wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> > You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
>> > aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a reason
>> > aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.
>
>> There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very tiring to
>> hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you need not grip them
>> continously, but neither can you ignore them for very long if you have no
>> autopilot.
>
>You are still a babbling, know nothing of the real world, arrogant, idiot.
>
>One of the first things my instructor did during training was to have
>me fly a short cross country with my arms folded across my chest
>maintaining course with rudder after trimming out the airplane.
>

On a lighter note, my instructor put me in a link trainer one time and
pounded on it. When I asked him what he was doing, he said
"simulating hail."

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:55:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>
>>> You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
>>> aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a
>>> reason aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.
>>
>>There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very
>>tiring to hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you
>>need not grip them continously, but neither can you ignore them for
>>very long if you have no autopilot.
>
> This babbling idiot is going to continue posting this nonsense as long
> as anyone keeps responding to his nonsense. So I, for one, am just
> going to stop.

In r.a.p, he's not worth the cost of the electrons to reply to. But
in rec.travel.air, he has an audience which has a large percentage of non-
pilots and his outright falsehoods need to be corrected. I missed the
cross to r.a.p or would have deleted that in my reply.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[William Black[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Marty Shapiro writes:

>
> You are still a babbling, know nothing of the real world, arrogant, idiot.

Have you only just noticed?

Everyone in r.t.a worked that out years ago.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> One of the first things my instructor did during training was to have
> me fly a short cross country with my arms folded across my chest
> maintaining course with rudder after trimming out the airplane.

What was the purpose of this?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> One of the first things my instructor did during training was to have
>> me fly a short cross country with my arms folded across my chest
>> maintaining course with rudder after trimming out the airplane.
>
> What was the purpose of this?
>

What's it matter to you? You'll never fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
>> aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a
>> reason aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.
>
> There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very
> tiring to hold the controls for hours and hours.


How would you know?

You don't fly.


It's true that you
> need not grip them continously, but neither can you ignore them for
> very long if you have no autopilot.
>

Again, you don't fly. you don't know.


Bertie

[John Kulp]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:15:50 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:55:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>>
>>>> You don't have to constantly keep your hands on the controls of an
>>>> aircraft even a light aircraft without an autopilot. There is a
>>>> reason aircraft control surfaces have trim capability, you moron.
>>>
>>>There's a reason autopilots were developed, namely, that it's very
>>>tiring to hold the controls for hours and hours. It's true that you
>>>need not grip them continously, but neither can you ignore them for
>>>very long if you have no autopilot.
>>
>> This babbling idiot is going to continue posting this nonsense as long
>> as anyone keeps responding to his nonsense. So I, for one, am just
>> going to stop.
>
> In r.a.p, he's not worth the cost of the electrons to reply to. But
>in rec.travel.air, he has an audience which has a large percentage of non-
>pilots and his outright falsehoods need to be corrected. I missed the
>cross to r.a.p or would have deleted that in my reply.

Perhaps, but if they choose to listen to has babble over those of
experience pilots, there isn't anything one could do anyway. A
reasonable number of responses makes sense, but, at some point, where
he just keeps babbling nonsense it becomes a waste of time. The truth
will have already been put out and he will still be babbling.

[William Black[_1_]]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...

> Back in the 1930s, the British built a system of concrete "mirrors"
> designed to receive and potentially triangulate the engine noises from
> approaching enemy bombers approaching the Scuttled H'aisles.
>
> The idea didn't work, so the boffins chose Radio Detection and Ranging,
> better known as RADAR, for their next attempt at success, having
> preliminarily abandoned the active bouncing of sound through the air as
> requiring really loud "Bongs" instead of the modest whale-disenheartening
> "Pings" of ASDIC/SONAR.

Not quite.

The audio ranging things were built AFTER Chain Home was started.

I used to play on one at Skipsey when I was a kid, a very odd experience if
you stood in the wrong place on the acoustic lense.

No evidence that anything electrical was ever connected to them either. No
wires, no conduits, no connections back into the bunkers behind them,
nothing...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



>
> Meanwhile both the British and the dastardly Tschermans kept
> "stereoscopic" audio detectors in production and service through the early
> war years, busily listening for the drone of approaching bummers.
>
> You too may build your own RDF Loop (and those little US UHF TV antennae
> work fine) and buy a receiver to listen to local airport frequencies and
> plot "LOP"s for aircraft as they come and go. That's cheaper than
> attempting to locate and restore a surplus Gestapo signal
> detection/location truck (or one of the UK Post Office signals vans that
> could pinpoint your home television set, checking the big ledger book to
> see if your license had been paid - must have been very sensitive
> receivers).
>
> Every kitchen should have its own SLQ-32.....
>
> TMO
>

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> Guess?

My guess is a poor instructor.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Martin writes:
>
>> Guess?
>
> My guess is a poor instructor.

You guessed wrong.

Surprise.

bertie

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Martin writes:
>
> > Guess?
>
> My guess is a poor instructor.

Indeed. How on earth can you properly manage the complex microsoft
flight game controls in such a position?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Jon]

On Sep 17, 9:01 am, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Martin writes:
>
> > > Guess?
>
> > My guess is a poor instructor.
>
> Indeed. How on earth can you properly manage the complex microsoft
> flight game controls in such a position?
>

By RTFM?

:P

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Martin > wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:01:22 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> >> Martin writes:
> >>
> >> > Guess?
> >>
> >> My guess is a poor instructor.
> >
> >Indeed. How on earth can you properly manage the complex microsoft
> >flight game controls in such a position?
>
> Years of yoga training?

That's given me a horrible image!!! Maybe, he's not using his _hands_...
:(

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> MXS probably doesn't have rudder pedals on his computer, so he won't know
> what they're for.

Actually I do (if "MXS" means me).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> MXS probably doesn't have rudder pedals on his computer, so he won't
>> know what they're for.
>
> Actually I do (if "MXS" means me).
>

No, you don't. You've demonstrated that quite clearly with your last rant
on co-ordinated turns.

Just like you don't know how a wing works

Just like you don't know how GPS works.

You don't fly and you know nothing about it.


Bertie

[dgs[_2_]]

"Martin" > wrote in message
...

> You should see how he simulates flying in zero visibility.

It's pretty much how he approaches everything, innit?
--
dgs

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:30:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

>>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.

Why not? There is a lot of sky, even in only one direction. A single
airway at a single altitude can accommodate three new aircraft every
minute at 200 Kts. Admittedly, this is a gross simplification of time
and separation, but it's also only a single airway at a single altitude.

The airport itself was launching some traffic, but not much. And, at
least at the start of this wait (while the weather was pretty far away),
local weather wasn't an issue. This did change later, however.

What other limit(s) might be at issue? That's what I wonder.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:26:38 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

>> Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
>>they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
>>Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
>>who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
>>controllers. No ground control.
>
> These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
> Those are major airports, which do have ATC.

That's rather the point. This idea of congestion is an airport issue,
and it is limited to those airports where GA has little-to-no presence.
There are a few possible exceptions to this (ie. TEB), but it's also
worth remembering that TEB exists as a reliever precisely because of the
congestion at EWR etc.

- Andrew

[me[_2_]]

On Sep 19, 9:35 am, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:30:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:
> >>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.
>
> Why not? There is a lot of sky, even in only one direction. A single
> airway at a single altitude can accommodate three new aircraft every
> minute at 200 Kts. Admittedly, this is a gross simplification of time
> and separation, but it's also only a single airway at a single altitude.
>
> The airport itself was launching some traffic, but not much. And, at
> least at the start of this wait (while the weather was pretty far away),
> local weather wasn't an issue. This did change later, however.
>
> What other limit(s) might be at issue? That's what I wonder.

First of all your pilots would have had to request it. They would
have had to file the appropriate flight plans (which admittedly
they can probably amend via the radio as they sat). But
furthermore, they would have to figure out the relative fuel
burn for your alternate itinerary and the one they originally
intended. Large route changes cause excess fuel use.
They can sit and idle on the taxiway a long time before
they burn up that kind of fuel.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:02:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

>> 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.

I don't see it as "indirect", so in that sense I agree that this label is
odd to me. But it certainly is revenue.

> First, there is no way of
> measuring this that I can think of.

Does it need to be measured for the airlines to - intelligently, I
believe - be concerned? However, it's pretty easy given the proper data
to at least get a perspective. These flights are partially identifiable,
with some false positives and with no way to do this at the destination
side, by comparing home/work zip codes with the airport's location.
Imperfect, but it does help provide a picture.

[Hmm. If airlines and ground transport firms (car rental, limo, etc.)
share data than an even better picture can be constructed.]

> They are profiting with record loads.
> Leave the junk to these guys and go after the cream. It has worked very
> well.

First: are they "profiting"? High load doesn't necessarily translate to
this (ie. the old "make it up in volume" myth).

Next: Yes, they've optimized. Passengers pay for this optimization. One
such payment is in the ground travel. The "problem" for the future is
that there may be an alternative which is cheaper for the passenger when
the ground travel is considered. This eliminates that as a source of
savings for the airlines.

[...]

>
> 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.

I'm curious how you see these applying. Would the airlines still be
serving smaller markets if the trust fund money were being spent on those
airports? How is an inefficient ATC making it the proper choice to put
more/smaller aircraft in the air at fewer airports?

> 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.

Higher loads mean more profit iff there's profit on the service.
Competition can make this tough, as margins are shaved.

[...]

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

Nobody disagrees - as far as I can see - that the airlines have not
behaved in their own individual best interests. But, with regard to
airport delays, there's a commons problem. And with regard to the
potential for competition from the VLJs, I think it wise for the airlines
to be worried.

That doesn't mean, though, that actions in their best interests are in
mine (or in the best interests of the pool of potential aviation
passengers).

- Andrew

[Blanche]

Marty Shapiro > wrote:
(John Kulp) wrote in
:

[snip some of Jon & Marty's comments for length]

> 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.

That's because 1) Denver is a major hub for United and 2) the 777 and 747 were
either being repositioned or Denver was an interim stop for a longer flight.
For example, I've been on 747 DEN-ORD that was 70% empty. Why? Because it
was the aircraft for ORD-Frankfurt or similar. Or it was used for
JFK-DEN-SFO-Sydney, etc.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:07:42 -0400, NotPC >
wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Wouldn't make any difference since everyone just laughs at idiots like
>>>> you anyway
>>>>
>>> All you can do is name call rather than converse with
>>> intelligence. You must have a PhD from the Jesse Jackson
>>> School of Race Card Extortion. Congratulation's! your
>>> ignorance is exposed for all too see sir.
>>
>> You haven't shown one ounce of intelligence in your raving, ranting
>> posts. And certainly no proof. You have simply blathered out the KKK
>> mantra of bull****.
>>
>>> 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.
>
>Oh boy now I belong to the KKK plus I am a bigot and racist!!!

Yup, Close enough.

>
>You did not graduate from the the Jesse Jackson Race Card
>Extortion School. You must have been a professor there!!

At least I graduated. Your senseless ranting and completely unproven
blathering makes it appear that you never had an education of any
kind.
>
>Poor PC brainwashed idiot. So sad. You need to get a
>job(position) with the Federal Guvment. They would love you.
>They will pay you six figures just to kiss the black ass.

Just you stupid racial ranting that is making everyone laugh at you.
Noticed you haven't put up one shred of evidence for any of you
ranting have you bonehead?

>
>Good luck

I'm hardly the one who needs luck. Try looking in the mirror. You
will see all you crazy fantasies chasing you.

[JerryLewis]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:07:42 -0400, NotPC >
> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:47 -0400, NotPC >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't make any difference since everyone just laughs at idiots like
>>>>> you anyway
>>>>>
>>>> All you can do is name call rather than converse with
>>>> intelligence. You must have a PhD from the Jesse Jackson
>>>> School of Race Card Extortion. Congratulation's! your
>>>> ignorance is exposed for all too see sir.
>>> You haven't shown one ounce of intelligence in your raving, ranting
>>> posts. And certainly no proof. You have simply blathered out the KKK
>>> mantra of bull****.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> Oh boy now I belong to the KKK plus I am a bigot and racist!!!
>
> Yup, Close enough.
>
>> You did not graduate from the the Jesse Jackson Race Card
>> Extortion School. You must have been a professor there!!
>
> At least I graduated. Your senseless ranting and completely unproven
> blathering makes it appear that you never had an education of any
> kind.
>> Poor PC brainwashed idiot. So sad. You need to get a
>> job(position) with the Federal Guvment. They would love you.
>> They will pay you six figures just to kiss the black ass.
>
> Just you stupid racial ranting that is making everyone laugh at you.
> Noticed you haven't put up one shred of evidence for any of you
> ranting have you bonehead?
>
>> Good luck
>
> I'm hardly the one who needs luck. Try looking in the mirror. You
> will see all you crazy fantasies chasing you.


"Shred" of evidence?

The links below show the best places to work in the Federal
Government for 2007

Notice the FAA is near the bottom of all Government agency's
UNLESS you are a minority then the ratings are sorta OK.

All the evidence anyone would need that the above poster is
correct. The FAA is full of incompetent happy minority's
while the rest of the FAA is ****ed off and unhappy and near
the bottom. Not a good thing for aluminum tubes full of
people flying through the air at 600 miles an hour. I want
all the FAA employees happy. Not just the Black employees!

The OP is correct. The FAA is ****ed up. The data proves it.

http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/

http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=TD03&q=scores_subcomponent

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:27:26 -0400, JerryLewis
> wrote:


>Notice the FAA is near the bottom of all Government agency's
>UNLESS you are a minority then the ratings are sorta OK.
>
>All the evidence anyone would need that the above poster is
>correct. The FAA is full of incompetent happy minority's
>while the rest of the FAA is ****ed off and unhappy and near
>the bottom. Not a good thing for aluminum tubes full of
>people flying through the air at 600 miles an hour. I want
>all the FAA employees happy. Not just the Black employees!
>
>The OP is correct. The FAA is ****ed up. The data proves it.
>
>http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/
>
>http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=TD03&q=scores_subcomponent

Oh right. This shows it ranking 215 out of 222 for support for
diversity with minorities ranking it high. That makes a lot of sense
doesn't it? Let's see. The minorities love the place but the whites
don't because they don't think it supports diversity. Right. And
just where does this show anybody is incompetent you racist jerk?

[JerryLewis]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:27:26 -0400, JerryLewis
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Notice the FAA is near the bottom of all Government agency's
>> UNLESS you are a minority then the ratings are sorta OK.
>>
>> All the evidence anyone would need that the above poster is
>> correct. The FAA is full of incompetent happy minority's
>> while the rest of the FAA is ****ed off and unhappy and near
>> the bottom. Not a good thing for aluminum tubes full of
>> people flying through the air at 600 miles an hour. I want
>> all the FAA employees happy. Not just the Black employees!
>>
>> The OP is correct. The FAA is ****ed up. The data proves it.
>>
>> http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/
>>
>> http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=TD03&q=scores_subcomponent
>
> Oh right. This shows it ranking 215 out of 222 for support for
> diversity with minorities ranking it high. That makes a lot of sense
> doesn't it? Let's see. The minorities love the place but the whites
> don't because they don't think it supports diversity. Right. And
> just where does this show anybody is incompetent you racist jerk?

Racist Jerk? My my are we testy. The below link is self
explanatory. If the Diversity experiments running the FAA
are so competent why do we have record airline delays in
America?

Why are airline bankruptcies at a RECORD?

Why is the FAA rated toward the bottom in employee
satisfaction and morale in the Government?

Like I said, women and blacks running the FAA the last 10
years or so have been an UNMITIGATED FAILURE

Call me all the names in the book but it will not cover up
the FACTS.

By the way, if you challenge the competency or
qualifications of a minority manager are you automatically
racist? I guess so in your eyes huh? Are you a graduate of
the Al Sharpton race card academy?

"Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners"

You personify the above statement. It don't matter if bodies
rain out of the sky everyday or America just grinds to a
halt just DO NOT challenge minority competency in the FAA or
Federal service huh?

You sir are a dumb ass. Diversity in the FAA and Government
is a FAILURE. The data proves it. Unless you are blind or
dumb you can't avoid the FACTS.(See FEMA and Katrina for
further proof of minority management cluster **** and
incompetency)


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/05/least-surprising-news-of-2007-airline-delays-the-worst-in-13-ye/

[Jim Logajan]

JerryLewis > wrote:
> If the Diversity experiments running the FAA
> are so competent why do we have record airline delays in
> America?

The FAA doesn't set the flight schedules for the airlines. What specific
actions on the part of the FAA are causing the record delays? Name them and
the specific people originating them.

> Why are airline bankruptcies at a RECORD?

If they are, maybe it's because they are run mostly by white males chosen
more because they are good-old-boys and not necessarily competent?

> Call me all the names in the book but it will not cover up
> the FACTS.

Your "facts" are uncorrelated with your conclusions. By the way, Jerry
Lewis was never part of the "Rat Pack" and that's a FACT. Your chosen
handle is doubly ironic because the "Rat Pack" of the sixties were
allegedly instrumental in desegregating Vegas entertainment establishments
by refusing to play in or patronize any establishment that would not give
full service to African Americans such as Sammy Davis Jr.

> By the way, if you challenge the competency or
> qualifications of a minority manager are you automatically
> racist?

No. But if you blame minorities for things they aren't even involved with
or have no control over (as you constantly do) then chances are excellent
that you are racist.

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:29:24 -0400, JerryLewis
> wrote:

/bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=TD03&q=scores_subcomponent
>>
>> Oh right. This shows it ranking 215 out of 222 for support for
>> diversity with minorities ranking it high. That makes a lot of sense
>> doesn't it? Let's see. The minorities love the place but the whites
>> don't because they don't think it supports diversity. Right. And
>> just where does this show anybody is incompetent you racist jerk?
>
>Racist Jerk? My my are we testy. The below link is self
>explanatory. If the Diversity experiments running the FAA
>are so competent why do we have record airline delays in
>America?

Gee, why would anyone think you're a racist jerk:

a. when you agree with the other guy who's clearly a racist jerk?

b. call the minorities incompetent when you have no proof that they
are?

And you largely have these delays:

a. because of uncontrollable weather factors

b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system

c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system

>
>Why are airline bankruptcies at a RECORD?

Nothing to do with the FAA ace. See 9/11.

>
>Why is the FAA rated toward the bottom in employee
>satisfaction and morale in the Government?

Who knows? You don't and there is no indication that it is due to
incompetent minorities is there?

>
>Like I said, women and blacks running the FAA the last 10
>years or so have been an UNMITIGATED FAILURE
>
>Call me all the names in the book but it will not cover up
>the FACTS.

Of which you have exactly NONE. KKK.

>
>By the way, if you challenge the competency or
>qualifications of a minority manager are you automatically
>racist? I guess so in your eyes huh? Are you a graduate of
>the Al Sharpton race card academy?
>
>"Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners"
>
>You personify the above statement. It don't matter if bodies
>rain out of the sky everyday or America just grinds to a
>halt just DO NOT challenge minority competency in the FAA or
>Federal service huh?

Absolutely none of which have happened oh completely clueless one. In
fact, the US system is one of the safest in the world and is about at
a record high for safety at the moment, oh factless, racist twit. You
can challenge anyone's competency as long:

a. as you have proof of your challenge and you have none

b. it is for an individual, not some arbitrary group

c. which makes you a racist twit doesn't it?

>
>You sir are a dumb ass. Diversity in the FAA and Government
>is a FAILURE. The data proves it. Unless you are blind or
>dumb you can't avoid the FACTS.(See FEMA and Katrina for
>further proof of minority management cluster **** and
>incompetency)

See racists morons like you who try to:

a. make up bull**** like this for which you have NO facts

b. blame groups, based upon race as you do here, rather than
individuals who may have caused these problems because that fits your
miniscule racist brain

c. show what a complete ****ing idiot racist you really are

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:14:04 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>JerryLewis > wrote:
>> If the Diversity experiments running the FAA
>> are so competent why do we have record airline delays in
>> America?
>
>The FAA doesn't set the flight schedules for the airlines. What specific
>actions on the part of the FAA are causing the record delays? Name them and
>the specific people originating them.

That's right, but they and the politicos are responsible for failing
to come up with a GPS ATC which is their responsibility. Has nothing
to do with this idiot's racist rants though.

>
>> Why are airline bankruptcies at a RECORD?
>
>If they are, maybe it's because they are run mostly by white males chosen
>more because they are good-old-boys and not necessarily competent?

Oops. There goes the racial theories down the drain again.

>
>> Call me all the names in the book but it will not cover up
>> the FACTS.
>
>Your "facts" are uncorrelated with your conclusions. By the way, Jerry
>Lewis was never part of the "Rat Pack" and that's a FACT. Your chosen
>handle is doubly ironic because the "Rat Pack" of the sixties were
>allegedly instrumental in desegregating Vegas entertainment establishments
>by refusing to play in or patronize any establishment that would not give
>full service to African Americans such as Sammy Davis Jr.

Now he's having a heart attack.

>
>> By the way, if you challenge the competency or
>> qualifications of a minority manager are you automatically
>> racist?
>
>No. But if you blame minorities for things they aren't even involved with
>or have no control over (as you constantly do) then chances are excellent
>that you are racist.

They're a 100% in fact.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
>
> And you largely have these delays:
>
> a. because of uncontrollable weather factors
>
> b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
> money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system
>
> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>

While you are right about everything else in your post and the guy calling
himself Jerry Lewis is a racist idiot, I think yu are wrong here. The delays
are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time from the
same places. The above just adds to your problems.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>> And you largely have these delays:
>>
>> a. because of uncontrollable weather factors
>>
>> b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
>> money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system
>>
>> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>>
>
> While you are right about everything else in your post and the guy calling
> himself Jerry Lewis is a racist idiot, I think yu are wrong here. The
> delays are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time
> from the same places. The above just adds to your problems.
>
Kinda like where everyone wants to go to the same restaurants on Friday
evening about
6:00PM?

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:48:47 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>> And you largely have these delays:
>>
>> a. because of uncontrollable weather factors
>>
>> b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
>> money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system
>>
>> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>>
>
>While you are right about everything else in your post and the guy calling
>himself Jerry Lewis is a racist idiot, I think yu are wrong here. The delays
>are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time from the
>same places. The above just adds to your problems.
>
>

Yes, that is the short tem problem alright, but significant capacity
would be added to the system if they had a GPC ATC system. The FAA
has failed to produce this for years and already failed miserably on
one try with a billion + loss. With the same amount of flights with
such a system, delays wouldn't be a problem.

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:56:22 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>> And you largely have these delays:
>>>
>>> a. because of uncontrollable weather factors
>>>
>>> b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
>>> money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system
>>>
>>> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>>>
>>
>> While you are right about everything else in your post and the guy calling
>> himself Jerry Lewis is a racist idiot, I think yu are wrong here. The
>> delays are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time
>> from the same places. The above just adds to your problems.
>>
>Kinda like where everyone wants to go to the same restaurants on Friday
>evening about
>6:00PM?

Pretty much, but they have bouncers to control that

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:48:47 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>>
>
>I think yu are wrong here. The delays
>are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time from the
>same places. The above just adds to your problems.

You have to make allowances for clueless non-aviators; this is
crossposted to rec.travel.air the home of Mr. Atkielski.

[JerryLewis]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:48:47 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> And you largely have these delays:
>>>
>>> a. because of uncontrollable weather factors
>>>
>>> b. because politicians, like with Social Security, have stolen the
>>> money from fee based funds set aside to improve the system
>>>
>>> c. have completely failed to build a modern GPS based ATC system
>>>
>> While you are right about everything else in your post and the guy calling
>> himself Jerry Lewis is a racist idiot, I think yu are wrong here. The delays
>> are caused because all the airlines want to fly at the same time from the
>> same places. The above just adds to your problems.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, that is the short tem problem alright, but significant capacity
> would be added to the system if they had a GPC ATC system. The FAA
> has failed to produce this for years and already failed miserably on
> one try with a billion + loss. With the same amount of flights with
> such a system, delays wouldn't be a problem.


There ya go blaming the racist KKK again. Never challenge a
minority and their competence or they will call you racist
and hide behind blaming whitey.(See Al Sharpton race
extortion academy)

GPS is pie in the sky. A minuscule single threaded signal
from space that can be jammed with $200 worth of radio shack
parts. So in your feeble brain you will hang all your FAA
navigation systems on a weak and easily jammed technology huh?

I don't care what you do if you

1. Don't put more concrete on the ground
2. Hire competent FAA Managers
3. Work with rather than **** off all the controllers and
technicians

You will still get record delays

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies(FAA Civil Rights and EEO empires).

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
our own good will torment us without end, for they do so
with the approval of their own conscience." ---C.S. Lewis

By the way, while the FAA does pay for this...

https://employees.faa.gov/employee_services/employee_assist/associations_programs/


They are CUTTING controllers and technicians. And you think
spending money on minority and female social programs is
better money spent than controllers and technicians?

Poor *******. You are so clueless. But I guess it makes you
feel better calling me racist and avoiding the
accountability and problem of incompetent minorities.

Typical

Why don't you go to this site and you will see the FAA is a
mess. If you can read.

http://themainbang.typepad.com/blog/

http://www.faafollies.com/

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

>
> Yes, that is the short tem problem alright, but significant capacity
> would be added to the system if they had a GPC ATC system. The FAA
> has failed to produce this for years and already failed miserably on
> one try with a billion + loss. With the same amount of flights with
> such a system, delays wouldn't be a problem.

All the space based ATC in the world isn't going to add gates and runways at
the major airports. The answer to the problem is simple. Charge more for
taking off from JFK at 8:00am than you do at 2:00am.

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:30:16 -0400, JerryLewis
> wrote:


>> Yes, that is the short tem problem alright, but significant capacity
>> would be added to the system if they had a GPC ATC system. The FAA
>> has failed to produce this for years and already failed miserably on
>> one try with a billion + loss. With the same amount of flights with
>> such a system, delays wouldn't be a problem.
>
>
>There ya go blaming the racist KKK again. Never challenge a
>minority and their competence or they will call you racist
>and hide behind blaming whitey.(See Al Sharpton race
>extortion academy)

Stupid racist blathering cut for all you decent folks out there.

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:49:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, that is the short tem problem alright, but significant capacity
>> would be added to the system if they had a GPC ATC system. The FAA
>> has failed to produce this for years and already failed miserably on
>> one try with a billion + loss. With the same amount of flights with
>> such a system, delays wouldn't be a problem.
>
>All the space based ATC in the world isn't going to add gates and runways at
>the major airports. The answer to the problem is simple. Charge more for
>taking off from JFK at 8:00am than you do at 2:00am.
>
>

Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
stealing what money is already being paid for?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Kulp" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:56:22 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Kinda like where everyone wants to go to the same restaurants on Friday
>>evening about
>>6:00PM?
>
> Pretty much, but they have bouncers to control that

Or they build a bigger restaurant, or they figure a way to get people in and
out faster.

The FAA is running ATC about like they did 30 years ago (i.e., labor
intensive).

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Kulp" > wrote

> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
> stealing what money is already being paid for?

So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?
--
Jim in NC

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"John Kulp" > wrote
>
>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
>> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
>> stealing what money is already being paid for?
>
>So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>separation to be maintained?
>--
>Jim in NC
>
>

GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

[JerryLewis]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> "John Kulp" > wrote
>>
>>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>>> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
>>> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
>>> stealing what money is already being paid for?
>> So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>> separation to be maintained?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>>
>
> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
off!! GPS is useless without controllers

The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
mean **** in the big picture.

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:

>>
>>So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>>separation to be maintained?
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>>
>>
>
>
> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.


GPS does neither.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Kulp" > wrote
>
> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
factor for separation, isn't it?
--
Jim in NC

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:57:20 -0400, JerryLewis
> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "John Kulp" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>>>> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
>>>> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
>>>> stealing what money is already being paid for?
>>> So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>>> separation to be maintained?
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>>
>>>
>>
>> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
>> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.
>
>Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
>off!! GPS is useless without controllers
>
>The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
>mean **** in the big picture.

Just like your stupid racist rants. Don't mean ****. In any picture.

[John Kulp]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:27:34 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"John Kulp" > wrote
>>
>> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
>> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.
>
>If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
>factor for separation, isn't it?

Well, wake turbulence is certainly a factor, particularly for the A380
which may slow down things even further. Which raises the question as
to whether it should be penalized more than others if they start to
use penalties.

[JerryLewis]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:57:20 -0400, JerryLewis
> > wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John Kulp" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>>>>> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
>>>>> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
>>>>> stealing what money is already being paid for?
>>>> So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>>>> separation to be maintained?
>>>> --
>>>> Jim in NC
>>>>
>>>>
>>> GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
>>> more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.
>> Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
>> off!! GPS is useless without controllers
>>
>> The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
>> mean **** in the big picture.
>
> Just like your stupid racist rants. Don't mean ****. In any picture.

Your opinion about me being "racist" is just like an
asshole. Everyone has one at it stinks. Including yours.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

>
> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
> stealing what money is already being paid for?

What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?

I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this forum a
month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper off peak and more
expensive on-peak. That's how economics should work. Things should cost more
when they are in higher demand and less when they are in lower demand.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

>
> Well, wake turbulence is certainly a factor, particularly for the A380
> which may slow down things even further. Which raises the question as
> to whether it should be penalized more than others if they start to
> use penalties.

If it takes up more of a scarce asset then of course it should pay more.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "John Kulp" > wrote
>
>>GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
>>more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.
>
>
> If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
> factor for separation, isn't it?

You need up to six miles behind a heavy. Your spamcan needs four miles
behind a large, such as a B737. To say GPS increases available capacity
25% is ludicrous.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system
>>> would handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't
>>> you paying enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the
>>> politicos are stealing what money is already being paid for?
>>
>>
>> What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?
>>
>> I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this
>> forum a month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper
>> off peak and more expensive on-peak. That's how economics should
>> work. Things should cost more when they are in higher demand and
>> less when they are in lower demand.
>
> Then again it should also be that an increased use of resources should
> cost more. Thus 747s should cost more than 737s and 380s more than
> 737s. The only serious issue should be how much more.

The difference in resource use between a 737 and a 747 both wanting to land
around the same time is insignificant as compared to the difference in use
of resources between and aircraft landing at 8:00 am and one at 2:00am.

[John Kulp]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:26:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>> handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
>> enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
>> stealing what money is already being paid for?
>
>What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?

Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?

>
>I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this forum a
>month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper off peak and more
>expensive on-peak. That's how economics should work. Things should cost more
>when they are in higher demand and less when they are in lower demand.
>
>

Well, I didn't see your post then so I can't comment

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?
>
> Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?

It _may_ be able to more precisely control separation out in the airways,
and get them set up for landing sequence, but notice I said "may." They do
a pretty good job with radar, right now.

What it _can not_ do is put more aircraft on the runways per hour in the big
airports operating with all of the landing slots full. The separation for
wake turbulence is always going to be the limiting factor in how many
aircraft can land at a given busy airport at peak times. GPS is not going
to change that.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:

>>What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?
>
>
> Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?

Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of
runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the
runways we have now.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Newps > posted:
>>
>> [...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting
>> factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more
>> airplanes onto the runways we have now.
>>
> Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we
> have now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub
> system that overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand
> was low. Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed
> airports. Of course, the airlines would probably find this to be a
> threat to direct service to locations of highest demand, but from a
> passenger's point of view, it's becoming more difficult to get a
> flight direct to very many places anyway.
>
> Neil

Sure that will work but to do it would mean more smaller aircraft in the
system, which I don't personally think is a bad thing but it could bring
about another problem where the ATC is over burdened. Of course it is a lot
easier to hire and train mor controllers than it is to build more runways.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:04:04 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>>What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?
>>
>>
>> Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?
>
>Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
>trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
>of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
>because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
> If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
>between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
>out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
>The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of
>runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the
>runways we have now.

Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:

>>Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
>>trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
>>of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
>>because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
>> If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
>>between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
>>out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
>>The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of
>>runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the
>>runways we have now.
>
>
> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

GPS was designed and built by the military. Imagine that, the airlines
not wanting to change anything but have others change to meet their
outmoded business plan. You can't change basic physics. GPS can
generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?
Many studies have been done that the optimal runway occupancy time is
approx 45 seconds for a landing aircraft. More typical is 1 minute, in
good weather. That's approx 2.5-3 miles separation. You want more
operations? Lay more concrete.

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:04:04 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>>What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?
>>
>>Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
>>trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
>>of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
>>because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
>> If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
>>between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
>>out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
>>The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of
>>runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the
>>runways we have now.
>
> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>

Let's see. US airline management, which, collectively since day one
of air travel in the US, have managed to operate at a net loss, says GPS
will solve our problem. An air traffic controller tells you about spacing
requirements for both wake turbulence and operational requirements. And
you believe the airline management?

Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.

For example, I was once on a coast to coast flight when, just after
the cabin doors closed, but before push back, our captain gets on the horn
and tells us there will be a two hour delay due to weather. Well, as I
normally pull an FAA weather briefing before any flight I take, whether I'm
flying the airplane or just a passenger, I pulled out my briefing and could
not see any weather probelms anywhere on our route. The passenger in the
seat next to me noticed what I was reading and said that she worked at the
FAA ARTCC which covered our departure airport. She calls her coworkers at
center and they don't know of any weather delays. They then call the FAA
flow control center to see if there are any problems anywhere in the USA.
Nope, none whatsoever. Yet the airline is saying there is a weather
problem.

Airlines LIE.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Newps > posted:
>
> [...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting
> factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more
> airplanes onto the runways we have now.
>
Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we have
now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub system that
overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand was low.
Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed airports. Of course,
the airlines would probably find this to be a threat to direct service to
locations of highest demand, but from a passenger's point of view, it's
becoming more difficult to get a flight direct to very many places anyway.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

>
> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they wouldn't
be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>>Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
>>>trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
>>>of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
>>>because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
>>> If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
>>>between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
>>>out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
>>>The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting factor is lack of
>>>runways. No amount of technology can force more airplanes onto the
>>>runways we have now.
>>
>>
>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>
>GPS was designed and built by the military.

So what? I use it all the time in my car to find where I am and where
I'm going. Just like the airlines want.

Imagine that, the airlines
>not wanting to change anything but have others change to meet their
>outmoded business plan.

Imagine you not knowing what you're talking about. The airlines have
made huge changes in their business plans which you obviously know
nothing about.

You can't change basic physics. GPS can
>generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
>arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
>and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
>reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
>2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?

Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?

>Many studies have been done that the optimal runway occupancy time is
>approx 45 seconds for a landing aircraft. More typical is 1 minute, in
>good weather. That's approx 2.5-3 miles separation. You want more
>operations? Lay more concrete.

a. what studies?

b. that would increase efficiency about 50% if it is currently 6 miles
wouldn't it?

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:38:25 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:


>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>>
>
> Let's see. US airline management, which, collectively since day one
>of air travel in the US, have managed to operate at a net loss, says GPS
>will solve our problem. An air traffic controller tells you about spacing
>requirements for both wake turbulence and operational requirements. And
>you believe the airline management?

Completely irrelevant to the issue and there are huge differences
between airline managements. See United and Continental.

>
> Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.

And all Mexicans are lazy and emotional as some other biased moron
posted earlier. Ever think you're just a thick idiot that can't
analyze anything?

>
> For example, I was once on a coast to coast flight when, just after
>the cabin doors closed, but before push back, our captain gets on the horn
>and tells us there will be a two hour delay due to weather. Well, as I
>normally pull an FAA weather briefing before any flight I take, whether I'm
>flying the airplane or just a passenger, I pulled out my briefing and could
>not see any weather probelms anywhere on our route. The passenger in the
>seat next to me noticed what I was reading and said that she worked at the
>FAA ARTCC which covered our departure airport. She calls her coworkers at
>center and they don't know of any weather delays. They then call the FAA
>flow control center to see if there are any problems anywhere in the USA.
>Nope, none whatsoever. Yet the airline is saying there is a weather
>problem.

Typical of the morons that post on the usenet. Ace, in the summer
there are nearly one million flights a month in the US. So, being the
cretin you are, you extrapolate one flight in about a million to come
to this brilliant conclusion?

>
> Airlines LIE.

And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>
>Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
>admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they wouldn't
>be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.
>
>

Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
increase the capacity by about 25%.

[Marty Shapiro]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:38:25 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>>>
>>
>> Let's see. US airline management, which, collectively since
>> day one
>>of air travel in the US, have managed to operate at a net loss, says
>>GPS will solve our problem. An air traffic controller tells you
>>about spacing requirements for both wake turbulence and operational
>>requirements. And you believe the airline management?
>
> Completely irrelevant to the issue and there are huge differences
> between airline managements. See United and Continental.
>
>>
>> Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.
>
> And all Mexicans are lazy and emotional as some other biased moron
> posted earlier. Ever think you're just a thick idiot that can't
> analyze anything?
>
>>
>> For example, I was once on a coast to coast flight when, just
>> after
>>the cabin doors closed, but before push back, our captain gets on the
>>horn and tells us there will be a two hour delay due to weather.
>>Well, as I normally pull an FAA weather briefing before any flight I
>>take, whether I'm flying the airplane or just a passenger, I pulled
>>out my briefing and could not see any weather probelms anywhere on our
>>route. The passenger in the seat next to me noticed what I was
>>reading and said that she worked at the FAA ARTCC which covered our
>>departure airport. She calls her coworkers at center and they don't
>>know of any weather delays. They then call the FAA flow control
>>center to see if there are any problems anywhere in the USA. Nope,
>>none whatsoever. Yet the airline is saying there is a weather
>>problem.
>
> Typical of the morons that post on the usenet. Ace, in the summer
> there are nearly one million flights a month in the US. So, being the
> cretin you are, you extrapolate one flight in about a million to come
> to this brilliant conclusion?
>
>>
>> Airlines LIE.
>
> And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.

You are a moron.

GPS can NOT reduce the minimum safe spacing in trail between aircraft.
That spacing is dictated by wake turbulence and the time the runway is
possessed by only one aircraft, specifically the time from when it lands
until it clears the runway or from when it enters the runway and takes off.

Tells us: How high must an aircraft climb before it can execute a
turn (non-emergency)? If it is more than 0' AGL, then you need to maintain
wake turbulence separation for take off. How about landing? You want to
creep up too close and get flipped by wing vortex? That spacing is
dictated primarily by the size of the aircraft. GPS doesn't address either
of these requirements.

Only a moron believes what airline managment says.

PLONK!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:46:49 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:


>>> Airlines LIE.
>>
>> And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.
>
> You are a moron.

Blah, blah, if the shoe fits (as it does) wear it.

>
> GPS can NOT reduce the minimum safe spacing in trail between aircraft.
>That spacing is dictated by wake turbulence and the time the runway is
>possessed by only one aircraft, specifically the time from when it lands
>until it clears the runway or from when it enters the runway and takes off.

Nobody said that cretin. What was said is that it appears the minimum
distance between aircraft can be reduced significantly and then GPS
can control the spacing. Went right over your head didn't it?

>
> Tells us: How high must an aircraft climb before it can execute a
>turn (non-emergency)? If it is more than 0' AGL, then you need to maintain
>wake turbulence separation for take off. How about landing? You want to
>creep up too close and get flipped by wing vortex? That spacing is
>dictated primarily by the size of the aircraft. GPS doesn't address either
>of these requirements.

More stupid hand waving by this idiot. Nobody said any of that. See
above for what really was said. Either the minimum spacing can safely
be reduced or not. If so, GPS can safely control the spacing. If
not, not.

>
> Only a moron believes what airline managment says.

Sure generalizing moron. There is no difference between United's and
Continental's management. That's why you won't find anybody at United
who believes one word it's management says while Continental's has had
smooth cooperative labor relations for years. Guess which one is the
better airline. You are a complete moron.

>
>PLONK!

The usual response of an idiot who has been shown to be just that.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>

John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
circles waiting to land.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>>
>> Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
>> admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they
>> wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.
>>
>>
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
> GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
> politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
> increase the capacity by about 25%.


The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in them. What
exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>
>John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
>manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
>they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
>are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
>circles waiting to land.

Where did I say this? I said that if spacing can be reduced due to
safer wake turbulence management then GPS can be used to safely close
those spaces and improve the capacity of the system. That's all.
Just where do you think I am confused. And, if I am wrong (or
confused)

a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

b. why are the airlines backing that change?

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>>>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>>>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>>>
>>> Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
>>> admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they
>>> wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
>> GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
>> politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
>> increase the capacity by about 25%.
>
>
>The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in them. What
>exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?
>
>

It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Newps > posted:
>>>
>>> [...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting
>>> factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more
>>> airplanes onto the runways we have now.
>>>
>> Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we
>> have now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub
>> system that overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand
>> was low. Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed
>> airports. [...]
>>
>
> Sure that will work but to do it would mean more smaller aircraft in
> the system, which I don't personally think is a bad thing but it
> could bring about another problem where the ATC is over burdened. Of
> course it is a lot easier to hire and train mor controllers than it
> is to build more runways.
>
It's especially pointless to build more runways in the same overtaxed
hubs. Furthermore, it might not matter if there are more aircraft in the
air as long as they aren't all going to the same place. From what I
gather, the overload is derived from the number of arrivals & departures
at peak times. Spread that out, and the load drops. The more ways that
gets spread out, the better the system should function.

Neil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>>John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are
>>>>> all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it
>>>>> build. So just what do you know that those running the business
>>>>> don't?
>>>>
>>>> Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if
>>>> they admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then
>>>> they wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is
>>> a GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by
>>> the politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates,
>>> would increase the capacity by about 25%.
>>
>>
>>The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in
>>them. What exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?
>>
>>
>
> It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself
>
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa


You're an idiot, lean to read, fjukktard.



Bertie
>

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>>>> Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is
>>>> a GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by
>>>> the politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates,
>>>> would increase the capacity by about 25%.
>>>
>>>
>>>The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in
>>>them. What exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa
>>
>
>
>you're an idiot, learn to read, fjukkktard.

Whatever you say ******.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in >:

>
>a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.


>b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]





[1]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
http://www.iraqforsale.org



[2] http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ast/atm.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?
>
> The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.
>
> The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
> government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
> enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
> exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
> business.
>
> Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
> Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
> example.
>
> Privatization also removes government accountability; private
> corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.
>
>
>>b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>
> The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
> nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
> wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
> resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
> agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
> Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]
>
>
>

If ATC is privatised, light aviation is, in a word, ****ed.



Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John Kulp > posted:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to
>> somehow manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when
>> airlines use GPS they can fly direct from point A to point B but if
>> A and B are crowded they are still going to have to wait on the
>> ground to take off and fly around in circles waiting to land.
>
> Where did I say this? I said that if spacing can be reduced due to
> safer wake turbulence management then GPS can be used to safely close
> those spaces and improve the capacity of the system. That's all.
> Just where do you think I am confused. And, if I am wrong (or
> confused)
>
From what you said on 10/29/07:

"Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways."

And restated in your response to Jim:

>"So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>separation to be maintained?"
>--
>Jim in NC
>
>
"GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more."

It appears that your expectations are too optimistic. The reasons for the
required separation in the destination airspace are wake turbulence and
runway safety. GPS will not have an impact on that, and that is where and
why the delays are occurring. As several others have explained, getting
there faster will not mean getting on (or off) the ground faster. It may
be that having 25% more flights in the air would only aggravate the
situation, as the required separation would still have to be maintained in
the airport's environment.

> a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?
>
> b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>
There are some benefits to upgrading the technology, particularly in
regard to near-misses en route. But, as long as the airlines' scheduling
and hub system are unchanged, there probably won't be any big improvement
in the number of delays. Go to one of the busier airports and observe the
arrivals and departures and you'll get an idea of why.

Neil

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
>wrote in >:
>
>>
>>a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?
>
>The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes have
done quite well

>
>The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
>government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
>enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
>exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
>business.

How does that work? Why wouldn't the government just be getting out
of the business?

>
>Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
>Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
>example.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.

>
>Privatization also removes government accountability; private
>corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.

Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
longer doing. Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

>
>
>>b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>
>The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
>nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
>wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
>resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
>agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
>Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]

Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
which is a virtual sure thing. Who else but the government do you
know that is still using WWII technology like the FAA?

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:08:28 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>>
>> Whatever you say ******.
>>
>
>Awwww, hiwt yow widda feewings?
>
>
>Fact is, I know what I'm talking about and you don't.

Hardly. You just continue to make a complete idiot out of yourself by
posting crap like this and adding nothing to the discussion.
Laughable really ******

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Kulp" <> wrote

> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he says
on this subject.
--
Jim in NC

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:17 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, John Kulp > posted:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to
>>> somehow manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when
>>> airlines use GPS they can fly direct from point A to point B but if
>>> A and B are crowded they are still going to have to wait on the
>>> ground to take off and fly around in circles waiting to land.
>>
>> Where did I say this? I said that if spacing can be reduced due to
>> safer wake turbulence management then GPS can be used to safely close
>> those spaces and improve the capacity of the system. That's all.
>> Just where do you think I am confused. And, if I am wrong (or
>> confused)
>>
>From what you said on 10/29/07:
>
>"Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
>handle about 25% more flights on the same runways."
>
>And restated in your response to Jim:
>
>>"So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
>>separation to be maintained?"
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>>
>>
>"GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
>more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more."

That's what is being said about the system. Like I asked, where did I
say anything that defies the laws of physics? Not here for sure.

>
>It appears that your expectations are too optimistic. The reasons for the
>required separation in the destination airspace are wake turbulence and
>runway safety. GPS will not have an impact on that, and that is where and
>why the delays are occurring. As several others have explained, getting
>there faster will not mean getting on (or off) the ground faster. It may
>be that having 25% more flights in the air would only aggravate the
>situation, as the required separation would still have to be maintained in
>the airport's environment.

And it may well not. You are only looking at rush hour times in this
analysis that I can see. In that period, there may or may not be an
improvement. But, in non-rush hours time when flights are delayed due
to say weather along the flight path that an airplane is taking that
could be avoided using GPS, or putting more flights in general in the
space in those non-rush hours times, capacity might be significantly
increased. How does anyone know how many of these types of flights
are running into rush hour times because they are delayed due to
controllable factors like this? I have had this happen to myself
several times.

>
>> a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?
>>
>> b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>>
>There are some benefits to upgrading the technology, particularly in
>regard to near-misses en route. But, as long as the airlines' scheduling
>and hub system are unchanged, there probably won't be any big improvement
>in the number of delays. Go to one of the busier airports and observe the
>arrivals and departures and you'll get an idea of why.

Scheduling, I think, might well improve because it could be more
precisely managed with GPS as I point out above. Simply focusing on
rush hour times misses the forest for all the trees.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "John Kulp" <> wrote
>
>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>
> He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he
> says on this subject.

I'm willing to bet Kulpo would not.



Bertie

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:46:30 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"John Kulp" <> wrote
>
>> Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
>> advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
>> So just what do you know that those running the business don't?
>
>He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he says
>on this subject.
>--

Then he can answer can't he?

[Justin Case]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

>>The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.
>
> It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
> have done quite well

Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
before Bill Clinton came into the White House.

--

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000, Justin Case
> wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>
>>>The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.
>>
>> It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
>> have done quite well
>
>Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
>before Bill Clinton came into the White House.
>
>--

True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as Hilary
does now.

[Justin Case]

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

>>Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
>>before Bill Clinton came into the White House.
>>
>>--
>
> True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as
> Hilary does now.

What in the hell are talking about. You should increase your meds.

--

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:40:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in news:47291178.194886732
:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000, Justin Case
>> > wrote:
>>
(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>>>
>>>>>The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.
>>>>
>>>> It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
>>>> have done quite well
>>>
>>>Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
>>>before Bill Clinton came into the White House.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>> True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as Hilary
>> does now.
>>
>
>
>And what kind of navigation do you use to get around your own head?

Your nose up my ass.

[John Kulp]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:49:50 -0000, Justin Case
> wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>
>>>Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
>>>before Bill Clinton came into the White House.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>> True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as
>> Hilary does now.
>
>What in the hell are talking about. You should increase your meds.
>
>--

Nothing you obviously understand pothead

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or Kulp? Both
seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no longer
mention a good run for the money.

I think Mxs will probably retain the title, but Kulp is sure closing
the distance between them

A picture of Kulp studying wake turbulance and operational speparation
with GPS can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2o8f6h

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he
>> says on this subject.
>
> I'm willing to bet Kulpo would not.

Ya think??? <G>

I don't remember this screen name, until very recently. I'm voting on a new
(or recycled) k00k!
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
> Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or
> Kulp? Both
> seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
> history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no
> longer mention a good run for the money.
>


Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.


> I think Mxs will probably retain the title, but Kulp is sure
> closing
> the distance between them


He's definitely dumb enough,He's also an asshole. I don't see him as KOTM
material yet, but I won't write him off as a contender. A bit of training
and he could be good. Very good.


>
> A picture of Kulp studying wake turbulance and operational
> speparation
> with GPS can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2o8f6h
>

You can't fool me, that's anthony!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>>> He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what
>>> he says on this subject.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet Kulpo would not.
>
> Ya think??? <G>
>
> I don't remember this screen name, until very recently. I'm voting on
> a new (or recycled) k00k!

I haven't noticed him before. Sometimes gold is right under your feet.


His next step? He'll call me some names and say I'm not worth his time..

They all do that for the first year or so..



Bertie

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:52:10 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:
>
> Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or Kulp? Both
>seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
>history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no longer
>mention a good run for the money.
>
> I think Mxs will probably retain the title, but Kulp is sure closing
>the distance between them
>
> A picture of Kulp studying wake turbulance and operational speparation
>with GPS can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2o8f6h
>
>--
>Marty Shapiro
>Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
>(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Now the two cretins speak together. And that stupid picture has only
been around the web for about 10 years now. About as original as your
views on GPS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(John Kulp) wrote in news:47291ec8.198295103
@news20.forteinc.com:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:40:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
(John Kulp) wrote in news:47291178.194886732
:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000, Justin Case
>>> > wrote:
>>>
(John Kulp) wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>>>The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes
>>>>> have done quite well
>>>>
>>>>Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
>>>>before Bill Clinton came into the White House.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>
>>> True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as
Hilary
>>> does now.
>>>
>>
>>
>>And what kind of navigation do you use to get around your own head?
>
> Your nose up my ass.
>



Mmm, Nope



try again, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Jon]

On Oct 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro > wrote :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
> > Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or
> > Kulp? Both
> > seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
> > history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no
> > longer mention a good run for the money.

But splaps provided a slightly different kind of entertainment
'value', including the following which made it into my 'memorable
quotes file:'

"Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
design?" - McNicoll to Tarver in rec.aviation.ifr

Interestingly, I can't recall Steve ever responding to Mx. Perhaps
this is a useful datapoint, and could be considered for being a metric
in evaluating rank.

Let's call it the 'too insignificant to bother expending cycles on'
metric.

:P

> Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.

And just when we thought it was safe to go outside ;)

>> [bobbitzed]


Have a day,

Jon

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:40:14 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in >:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
>>wrote in >:
>>
>>>
>>>a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?
>>
>>The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
>>government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
>>enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
>>exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
>>business.
>
>How does that work? Why wouldn't the government just be getting out
>of the business?
>
>>
>>Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
>>Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
>>example.
>
>Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.
>

Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
resulted in a windfall for private contractors?

>>
>>Privatization also removes government accountability; private
>>corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.
>
>Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
>longer doing.

Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

>Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
>customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

None of which will grant public access to their records as is
currently possible under the FAA.

Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
contractor?

>>
>>>b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>>
>>The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
>>nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
>>wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
>>resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
>>agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
>>Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]
>
>Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
>which is a virtual sure thing.

ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
just your unsubstantiated guess?

Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
foreign power to control the US skies?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John Kulp > posted:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:17 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>>
>> It appears that your expectations are too optimistic. The reasons
>> for the required separation in the destination airspace are wake
>> turbulence and runway safety. GPS will not have an impact on that,
>> and that is where and why the delays are occurring. As several
>> others have explained, getting there faster will not mean getting on
>> (or off) the ground faster. It may be that having 25% more flights
>> in the air would only aggravate the situation, as the required
>> separation would still have to be maintained in the airport's
>> environment.
>
> And it may well not. You are only looking at rush hour times in this
> analysis that I can see. In that period, there may or may not be an
improvement.
>
That is when the delays are occurring. It would be easy to increase the
number of flights without building any new systems if all the additional
flights were scheduled in off-peak times. So, it is your notion that there
may be an improvement during those times that is being questioned.

> But, in non-rush hours time when flights are delayed due
> to say weather along the flight path that an airplane is taking that
> could be avoided using GPS,
>
The major impact that weather has on the airline system is due to the use
of hubs. Bad weather at one of the hubs can ground flights all over the
place. GPS can not move the hubs, so why would there be any change for the
better?

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:

>
> It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself
>
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa


If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm tapping
out.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:20:37 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:


>>>Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
>>>Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
>>>example.
>>
>>Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.
>>
>
>Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
>resulted in a windfall for private contractors?

Sure. Prision privatization. Go look at CCA and see how when they
are doing really well, as opposed to outright losses, they make a 10%
return on equity. Great windfall that huh?

>
>>>
>>>Privatization also removes government accountability; private
>>>corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.
>>
>>Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
>>longer doing.
>
>Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
>they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

That's not the same thing. Who said anything about destroying records
anyway? You think you'll get very far suing the government?

>
>>Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
>>customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.
>
>None of which will grant public access to their records as is
>currently possible under the FAA.

a. that could be made part of the privatization

b. auditors would require them to be available anyway for their review

>
>Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
>F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
>pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
>position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
>was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
>contractor?

By suing them, of course. Have you never heard of discovery?

>
>>>
>>>>b. why are the airlines backing that change?
>>>
>>>The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
>>>nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
>>>wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
>>>resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
>>>agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
>>>Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]
>>
>>Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
>>which is a virtual sure thing.
>
>ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
>system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
>your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
>end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
>just your unsubstantiated guess?

Says who? Claiming that an ATC system based on WWII technology is
better and safer than a GPS system is plain ludicrous. There are
plenty of these already in use worldwide. Go look at them.

>
>Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
>competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
>Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
>foreign power to control the US skies?
>

Did Dubai get the ports? And just where was the scandal? In the
minds of xenophobic idiots like those that locked up the Japanese
Americans in WWII. Guess what the scandal was there. An Iranian
firm. Right. State of the art technology there. HAHAHAHA!

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:09:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa
>
>
>If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
>technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm tapping
>out.
>
>

Feel free. Do a google search yourself and you will find plenty. This
is just one I came across.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Kulp wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:09:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/faa
>>
>>
>> If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
>> technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm
>> tapping out.
>>
>>
>
> Feel free. Do a google search yourself and you will find plenty. This
> is just one I came across.

I pretty fully understand how ADS-B will improve certain things about the
ATC system and I didn't get my info from Wired. Looking back at the Wired
article I think it is telling that all of the reader comments pretty much
jive with what we have been saying here.

[Justin Case]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> And you don't even know what GPS is.

Come on, Bertie, John Kulp knows what GPS is and its benefits. For
one, it will automatically increase the size of the airline hubs at a
moments notice. Secondly, the satellites in orbit will help increase
crop production which will eliminate World Hunger.

You just gotta put on your tinfoil hat and listen.

--

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Marty Shapiro > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or
>> > Kulp? Both
>> > seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
>> > history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no
>> > longer mention a good run for the money.
>
> But splaps provided a slightly different kind of entertainment
> 'value', including the following which made it into my 'memorable
> quotes file:'
>
> "Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
> design?" - McNicoll to Tarver in rec.aviation.ifr
>
> Interestingly, I can't recall Steve ever responding to Mx. Perhaps
> this is a useful datapoint, and could be considered for being a metric
> in evaluating rank.
>
> Let's call it the 'too insignificant to bother expending cycles on'
> metric.
>
> :P
>
>> Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.
>
> And just when we thought it was safe to go outside ;)
>
>>> [bobbitzed]
>
>
> Have a day,
>
> Jon
>

I agree, something should be said for P1, Temp 0. (Pitot, as in no jets
have 'em)

Al G

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:

>>GPS was designed and built by the military.
>
>
> So what?

You said GPS was designed to reduce airline delays. It wasn't designed
for anything of the sort. Nor can it do that.




>
> You can't change basic physics. GPS can
>
>>generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
>>arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
>>and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
>>reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
>>2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?
>
>
> Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
> don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?

That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:


>
> Nobody said that cretin. What was said is that it appears the minimum
> distance between aircraft can be reduced significantly and then GPS
> can control the spacing.

And that is completely wrong. Once the spacing has been established GPS
is irrelevant in maintaining it. The minimum spacing can not be reduced
from what it is now unless aircraft can be designed to be unaffected by
wake turbulence. And if that happens GPS will still be irrelevant.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:48 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>>GPS was designed and built by the military.
>>
>>
>> So what?
>
>You said GPS was designed to reduce airline delays. It wasn't designed
>for anything of the sort. Nor can it do that.

I never said anything of the sort. GPS was designed for military
purposes and is being applied to ATC. That's what I said, along with
saying that the FAA and the airlines think that it MAY reduce delays
by up to 25%. Or put up your proof, if you have any, that it cannot
and won't.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> You can't change basic physics. GPS can
>>
>>>generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
>>>arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
>>>and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
>>>reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
>>>2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?
>>
>>
>> Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
>> don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?
>
>That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
>to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?

Uhh, if the minimum spacing now is 5-6 miles and it can be reduced to
2.5 miles that increases capacity and reduces delays.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:54:52 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nobody said that cretin. What was said is that it appears the minimum
>> distance between aircraft can be reduced significantly and then GPS
>> can control the spacing.
>
>And that is completely wrong. Once the spacing has been established GPS
>is irrelevant in maintaining it. The minimum spacing can not be reduced
>from what it is now unless aircraft can be designed to be unaffected by
>wake turbulence. And if that happens GPS will still be irrelevant.
>
>

Well, since you just wave your hands and say so, that must be right.
And, duh, it will be the GPS system that puts the aircraft where
they're supposed to be in the flow so how is that irrelevant genius?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Oct 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Marty Shapiro > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> > Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs
>>> > or Kulp? Both
>>> > seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in
>>> > the history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name
>>> > we no longer mention a good run for the money.
>>
>> But splaps provided a slightly different kind of entertainment
>> 'value', including the following which made it into my 'memorable
>> quotes file:'
>>
>> "Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
>> design?" - McNicoll to Tarver in rec.aviation.ifr
>>
>> Interestingly, I can't recall Steve ever responding to Mx. Perhaps
>> this is a useful datapoint, and could be considered for being a
>> metric in evaluating rank.
>>
>> Let's call it the 'too insignificant to bother expending cycles on'
>> metric.
>>
>> :P
>>
>>> Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.
>>
>> And just when we thought it was safe to go outside ;)
>>
>>>> [bobbitzed]
>>
>>
>> Have a day,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
> I agree, something should be said for P1, Temp 0. (Pitot, as in no
> jets
> have 'em)



Please! It was bad enough when they came from the dreaded tarver
hisself.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Justin Case > wrote in news:Xns99DB6CDF2711EJCPost@
216.168.3.50:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> And you don't even know what GPS is.
>
> Come on, Bertie, John Kulp knows what GPS is and its benefits. For
> one, it will automatically increase the size of the airline hubs at a
> moments notice. Secondly, the satellites in orbit will help increase
> crop production which will eliminate World Hunger.
>


Yes, but will it ever get him laid?


> You just gotta put on your tinfoil hat and listen.
>


Could never find one that has that certain "dash"

And as my mom always told me, if yer gonna wear a hat ya gotta wear it like
ya mean it.



Bertie

[Jon]

On Nov 1, 3:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Justin Case > wrote in news:Xns99DB6CDF2711EJCPost@
> 216.168.3.50:
>[...]
> > You just gotta put on your tinfoil hat and listen.
>
> Could never find one that has that certain "dash"
>
> And as my mom always told me, if yer gonna wear a hat ya gotta wear it like
> ya mean it.
>
> Bertie

<http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/>

The Centurion should transport you whereever you may desire, in
relative style, comfort, and most importantly, protection... ;)


Have a day,

Jon

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:

>>>Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
>>>don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?
>>
>>That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
>>to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?
>
>
> Uhh, if the minimum spacing now is 5-6 miles and it can be reduced to
> 2.5 miles that increases capacity and reduces delays.


You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:


>
>
> Well, since you just wave your hands and say so, that must be right.
> And, duh, it will be the GPS system that puts the aircraft where
> they're supposed to be in the flow so how is that irrelevant genius?



GPS doesn't put the aircraft in the proper sequence and at the proper
spacing. I do, using a variety of techniques that any pilot who has
flown in controlled airspace can tell you about. GPS can help you
navigate to a particular location in space but does nothing to establish
and then maintain a desired spacing.

[John Kulp]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:36:40 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>
>>>>Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
>>>>don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?
>>>
>>>That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
>>>to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?
>>
>>
>> Uhh, if the minimum spacing now is 5-6 miles and it can be reduced to
>> 2.5 miles that increases capacity and reduces delays.
>
>
>You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
>stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.
>
>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

Are you really so stupid you pinhead that you still can't understand
the difference between what the situation is now, which no disputes,
and what it is thought it can be? Answer, yes you are or you wouldn't
continue to post this drivel.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jon" > wrote
>
> <http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/>
>
> The Centurion should transport you whereever you may desire, in
> relative style, comfort, and most importantly, protection... ;)

Oh, now you've done it! Now there will soon be a world wide aluminum foil
shortage, as the "fringe" element people are trying to design and test new
designs that will prove to be more effective in blocking the radio waves
from controlling their minds.

Thanks a lot! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Newps > writes:

> [...] Once the spacing has been established GPS is irrelevant in
> maintaining it. The minimum spacing can not be reduced from what it
> is now unless aircraft can be designed to be unaffected by wake
> turbulence. [...]

Does that not just affect in-trail separation?

- FChE

[Newps]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Newps > writes:
>
>
>>[...] Once the spacing has been established GPS is irrelevant in
>>maintaining it. The minimum spacing can not be reduced from what it
>>is now unless aircraft can be designed to be unaffected by wake
>>turbulence. [...]
>
>
> Does that not just affect in-trail separation?



Yes, but at the major airports the arrivals start approx 150 nm from the
airport. That's the latest aircraft start to get in trail. At the
busiest times the approach controls will slap a restriction onto the
centers for anywhere from 10-20 miles in trail for aircraft going into
the same airport that will start hundreds of miles from the destination.
Then as they get closer the aircraft streams will be joined together
to their minimum allowed separation.

[Newps]

John Kulp wrote:


>>
>>
>>You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
>>stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.
>>
>>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf
>
>
> Are you really so stupid you pinhead that you still can't understand
> the difference between what the situation is now, which no disputes,
> and what it is thought it can be? Answer, yes you are or you wouldn't
> continue to post this drivel.

Nice, poke a bunch of holes in your theory of panacea and you go all to
pieces. When you get actual experience instead of having read a
magazine article let us know.

[Marty Shapiro]

Newps > wrote in
:

>
>
> John Kulp wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
>>>stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.
>>>
>>>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_ord
>>>ers/media/7110.65R.pdf
>>
>>
>> Are you really so stupid you pinhead that you still can't understand
>> the difference between what the situation is now, which no disputes,
>> and what it is thought it can be? Answer, yes you are or you
>> wouldn't continue to post this drivel.
>
> Nice, poke a bunch of holes in your theory of panacea and you go all
> to pieces. When you get actual experience instead of having read a
> magazine article let us know.
>
>

Newps - I shouldn't have called Kulp a moron. He needs an IQ boost
of a few million orders of magnitude to reach the level of moron.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[M.W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> John Kulp wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
>>>stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.
>>>
>>>http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf
>>
>>
>> Are you really so stupid you pinhead that you still can't understand
>> the difference between what the situation is now, which no disputes,
>> and what it is thought it can be? Answer, yes you are or you wouldn't
>> continue to post this drivel.
>
> Nice, poke a bunch of holes in your theory of panacea and you go all to
> pieces. When you get actual experience instead of having read a magazine
> article let us know.
>

Is this Kulp ninny another MX alias?

[John Kulp]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:03:26 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:


> Newps - I shouldn't have called Kulp a moron. He needs an IQ boost
>of a few million orders of magnitude to reach the level of moron.

The coterie of complete idiots meet

[Newps]

Hey cool, we're a coterie. Is that anything like a cabal?




John Kulp wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:03:26 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>> Newps - I shouldn't have called Kulp a moron. He needs an IQ boost
>>of a few million orders of magnitude to reach the level of moron.
>
>
> The coterie of complete idiots meet

[Morgans[_2_]]

"M.W. Barrow" > wrote

> Is this Kulp ninny another MX alias?

I'm always quick to jump on an allegation like that, but this time, I don't
think so.

The writing isn't his style, I don't think.

You know, k00ks attract k00ks.

I guess that's why Bunyip's here! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jon > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Nov 1, 3:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Justin Case > wrote in
>> news:Xns99DB6CDF2711EJCPost@ 216.168.3.50:
>>[...]
>> > You just gotta put on your tinfoil hat and listen.
>>
>> Could never find one that has that certain "dash"
>>
>> And as my mom always told me, if yer gonna wear a hat ya gotta wear
>> it like ya mean it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> <http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/>
>
> The Centurion should transport you whereever you may desire, in
> relative style, comfort, and most importantly, protection... ;)


What more can you ask for in protection?


bertie