What's it gonna take?

[Jay Honeck]

....to fix the airlines?

I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
Just the facts, ma'am.

Here's what I *think* I know:

- Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
- Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
- GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized

The "solution" I most often hear bandied about is that the airlines
should abandon (or modify) the "hub & spoke" business model (whereby
they have massive centers of activity -- or "hubs" -- feeding the
farther-out "spoke" airports), and start making better use of the
thousands of under-utilized airports in America. In other words,
they should take the service to the people, rather than making the
people come to the service.

This is the model that Vern Raburn and others are trying to create
with the air taxi service, and the Eclipse jet. It is also the model
that worked in America from 1930 to (roughly) 1980.

Of course, IMHO this flies in the face of economic realities.
Although the jury is still out on the Eclipse jet/air taxi model, the
hub & spoke system evolved because it was the most efficient way to
provide cheap transportation to as many people as possible. The fact
that this system has grown beyond the means of the hub airports to
handle the traffic is an indication of its success -- but it still
begs the question: What to do now that the hubs are beyond capacity?

Opinions?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...to fix the airlines?
>
> I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
> Just the facts, ma'am.
>
> Here's what I *think* I know:
>
> - Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
> - Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
> - GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized
>
> The "solution" I most often hear bandied about is that the airlines
> should abandon (or modify) the "hub & spoke" business model (whereby
> they have massive centers of activity -- or "hubs" -- feeding the
> farther-out "spoke" airports), and start making better use of the
> thousands of under-utilized airports in America. In other words,
> they should take the service to the people, rather than making the
> people come to the service.
>
> This is the model that Vern Raburn and others are trying to create
> with the air taxi service, and the Eclipse jet. It is also the model
> that worked in America from 1930 to (roughly) 1980.
>
> Of course, IMHO this flies in the face of economic realities.
> Although the jury is still out on the Eclipse jet/air taxi model, the
> hub & spoke system evolved because it was the most efficient way to
> provide cheap transportation to as many people as possible. The fact
> that this system has grown beyond the means of the hub airports to
> handle the traffic is an indication of its success -- but it still
> begs the question: What to do now that the hubs are beyond capacity?
>
> Opinions?

Charge the airlines and anyone else using the overcrowded airports a premium
when they operate at peak times. Let's face it if the ticket rate is the
same if you fly out a 3am or 8am you are generally going to choose 8am.

It is a simple supply and demand problem. That runway is more valuable at
certain times during the day. They ought to charge more to use it then.

[xyzzy]

On Sep 12, 11:04 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > ...to fix the airlines?
>
> > I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
> > Just the facts, ma'am.
>
> > Here's what I *think* I know:
>
> > - Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
> > - Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
> > - GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized
>
> > The "solution" I most often hear bandied about is that the airlines
> > should abandon (or modify) the "hub & spoke" business model (whereby
> > they have massive centers of activity -- or "hubs" -- feeding the
> > farther-out "spoke" airports), and start making better use of the
> > thousands of under-utilized airports in America. In other words,
> > they should take the service to the people, rather than making the
> > people come to the service.
>
> > This is the model that Vern Raburn and others are trying to create
> > with the air taxi service, and the Eclipse jet. It is also the model
> > that worked in America from 1930 to (roughly) 1980.
>
> > Of course, IMHO this flies in the face of economic realities.
> > Although the jury is still out on the Eclipse jet/air taxi model, the
> > hub & spoke system evolved because it was the most efficient way to
> > provide cheap transportation to as many people as possible. The fact
> > that this system has grown beyond the means of the hub airports to
> > handle the traffic is an indication of its success -- but it still
> > begs the question: What to do now that the hubs are beyond capacity?
>
> > Opinions?
>
> Charge the airlines and anyone else using the overcrowded airports a premium
> when they operate at peak times. Let's face it if the ticket rate is the
> same if you fly out a 3am or 8am you are generally going to choose 8am.
>
> It is a simple supply and demand problem. That runway is more valuable at
> certain times during the day. They ought to charge more to use it then.

Phil Boyer is going to be very mad at you.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

xyzzy wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:04 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>> Charge the airlines and anyone else using the overcrowded airports a
>> premium when they operate at peak times. Let's face it if the ticket
>> rate is the same if you fly out a 3am or 8am you are generally going
>> to choose 8am.
>>
>> It is a simple supply and demand problem. That runway is more
>> valuable at certain times during the day. They ought to charge more
>> to use it then.
>
> Phil Boyer is going to be very mad at you.


Why's that? Those airports already have landing fees. I'd bet that Phil
would jump all over that idea. Mainly because it puts the cost where it
should be and would have very little impact on GA.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Opinions?
>

I know there are things I don't know enough about to have one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gene Seibel]

On Sep 12, 9:44 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> ...to fix the airlines?
>
> I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
> Just the facts, ma'am.
>
> Here's what I *think* I know:
>
> - Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
> - Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
> - GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized
>
> The "solution" I most often hear bandied about is that the airlines
> should abandon (or modify) the "hub & spoke" business model (whereby
> they have massive centers of activity -- or "hubs" -- feeding the
> farther-out "spoke" airports), and start making better use of the
> thousands of under-utilized airports in America. In other words,
> they should take the service to the people, rather than making the
> people come to the service.
>
St Louis bought out 3000 homes and built a billion dollar runway. TWA
folded, American moved out, and it sits unused right here in the
middle of the country. Seems it could take some pressure off the
busier hubs. Went to Operation Rain Check and the controllers begged
us to use their services to justify their existance.

Great place for touch and gos. ;) http://pad39a.com/gene/flypix18.html
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Hilton]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20724859

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> ...to fix the airlines?

High speed rail.

The fact is, airline travel is not the answer for _mass_ transportation.
That is why efficiency (hub and spokes) has collided fatally with practical
limits (airport capacity and weather).

The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct the
situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would make
even a congressman blanche. So we are stuck with automobiles, which are
inneficient, and airlines, which are unreliable.

Fix the airlines? Not without building lots more hubs, perhaps connected by
rail. Who's going to pay for that, let alone get it past the NIMBYs?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>Of course, IMHO this flies in the face of economic realities.
>Although the jury is still out on the Eclipse jet/air taxi model, the
>hub & spoke system evolved because it was the most efficient way to
>provide cheap transportation to as many people as possible. The fact

Exactly. Smaller planes use more fuel per passenger, plus more of the
other overhead costs per passenger. If you want to keep the cost per
passenger down, which I assume they do, then the airlines need to start
flying fewer trips per day on bigger airplanes.

I like the idea somebody else in this thread had of encouraging that
behaviour by setting landing fees based on how many operations per hour
happen that hour. Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the starting bid
"free". Airlines looking for lower costs will change their schedules to
avoid the hours where slots are going for lots of money, and people
willing to pay a premium can still get exactly the arrival time they want.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I look forward to killing you soon!" - Ninja, http://www.askaninja.com/

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:04:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>
>Charge the airlines and anyone else using the overcrowded airports a premium
>when they operate at peak times. Let's face it if the ticket rate is the
>same if you fly out a 3am or 8am you are generally going to choose 8am.
>
>It is a simple supply and demand problem. That runway is more valuable at
>certain times during the day. They ought to charge more to use it then.
>

That makes sense to me. However, who has the authority to implement
it? The FAA? The airport owners? Do you think there might be a
backlash from the flying public?

What if ATC started diverting flights to reliever airports during peak
hours at hubs? Isn't that the reason relievers exist?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>> ...to fix the airlines?
>
> High speed rail.

If you think the unions helped crap out the airlines, you should dig into
how they absolutely trashed the railroads.

>
> The fact is, airline travel is not the answer for _mass_ transportation.
> That is why efficiency (hub and spokes) has collided fatally with
> practical limits (airport capacity and weather).
>
> The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct the
> situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would
> make even a congressman blanche.

Congresscritters NEVER blanche when it comes to spedning other peoples
money.

> So we are stuck with automobiles, which are inneficient, and airlines,
> which are unreliable.

Really?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...to fix the airlines?
>
> I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
> Just the facts, ma'am.
>
> Here's what I *think* I know:
>
> - Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
> - Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
> - GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized

You should take a look at the trends over the past 5-7 years.

The airlines (major carriers) share of the market is diminishing, and the
regional's share is booming.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:55:46 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>:

>The airlines (major carriers) share of the market is diminishing, and the
>regional's share is booming.

If you're a dinosaur, and you fail to adapt to the changing
environment and evolve into something viable, extinction is
inevitable.

The major carriers are buying smaller aircraft to compete with the
regionals. Clearly that strategy is not working for the flying
public. Perhaps they should scale back, and be content with long-haul
business exclusively. But that would require major air carriers to
face the reality of a deregulated marketplace.

Alternatively, they can use their political muscle to force their
survival agenda on the nation's infrastructure at tax payers expense.
Ain't deregulation grand. :-(

[Mxsmanic]

Dan Luke writes:

> The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct the
> situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would make
> even a congressman blanche. So we are stuck with automobiles, which are
> inneficient, and airlines, which are unreliable.

It's being done in Europe. What prevents it from being done in the U.S.?

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> If you think the unions helped crap out the airlines, you should dig into
> how they absolutely trashed the railroads.

But high-speed rail is a reality in Europe.

When France put its first high-speed trains into service--more than a
quarter-century ago--air traffic between Paris and Lyons (the cities served by
the first line) almost instantly diminished by half. The air traffic never
recovered. Today, for trips of 1000 km or less, high-speed trains are faster
than air travel, and they are cheaper, more efficient, and more
environmentally friendly as well.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gene Seibel wrote:

>>
> St Louis bought out 3000 homes and built a billion dollar runway. TWA
> folded, American moved out, and it sits unused right here in the
> middle of the country. Seems it could take some pressure off the
> busier hubs. Went to Operation Rain Check and the controllers begged
> us to use their services to justify their existance.

The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty good
number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities. I guess no one wnats
to go to STL.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Matt Barrow writes:
>
>> If you think the unions helped crap out the airlines, you should dig
>> into how they absolutely trashed the railroads.
>
> But high-speed rail is a reality in Europe.
>
> When France put its first high-speed trains into service--more than a
> quarter-century ago--air traffic between Paris and Lyons (the cities
> served by the first line) almost instantly diminished by half. The
> air traffic never recovered. Today, for trips of 1000 km or less,
> high-speed trains are faster than air travel, and they are cheaper,
> more efficient, and more environmentally friendly as well.

The USA isn't France. In 2005 the average airline passenger trip length was
866 miles. That's around 1393.7 km. So our average trip length is longer
than your faster cheaper target.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>>>
>> St Louis bought out 3000 homes and built a billion dollar runway. TWA
>> folded, American moved out, and it sits unused right here in the
>> middle of the country. Seems it could take some pressure off the
>> busier hubs. Went to Operation Rain Check and the controllers begged
>> us to use their services to justify their existance.
>
> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty good
> number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities. I guess no one
> wnats to go to STL.
>
>

St Louis was a major maintenance base for TWA, kind of like Tulsa for
American. After American bought them out, I think most of the work went to
Tulsa and Alliance Fort Worth.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> That makes sense to me. However, who has the authority to implement
> it? The FAA? The airport owners? Do you think there might be a
> backlash from the flying public?

I had similar thoughts. Of course the flying public would hew and cry over
higher ticket prices. :)

> What if ATC started diverting flights to reliever airports during peak
> hours at hubs? Isn't that the reason relievers exist?

Good idea, but the major question with this is whether the relievers can
handle the traffic we need to offload - not to mention adequate ground
transportation to handle the added influx of passengers.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:04:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>> Charge the airlines and anyone else using the overcrowded airports a
>> premium when they operate at peak times. Let's face it if the ticket
>> rate is the same if you fly out a 3am or 8am you are generally going
>> to choose 8am.
>>
>> It is a simple supply and demand problem. That runway is more
>> valuable at certain times during the day. They ought to charge more
>> to use it then.
>>
>
> That makes sense to me. However, who has the authority to implement
> it? The FAA? The airport owners? Do you think there might be a
> backlash from the flying public?
>
> What if ATC started diverting flights to reliever airports during peak
> hours at hubs? Isn't that the reason relievers exist?

Who sets landing fees now? But to do it on a nation-wide basis the answer is
Congress. Well, if done correctly there shouldn't be a net gain in income to
the airport. The price of peak time flight would go up and the off peak
would go down. If a $10/seat swing doesn't do it naturally you increase the
cost until it does. I'd bet that the airline have enough data in their
systems right now to tell you pretty damn close where the swing amount will
be.

If there is no net cost to the airline to do it they should like the idea.
They would save enough in unscheduled holds and delays that they could foot
the cost for implementation and still increase profits.

Those that it would cost are those that need to get to a certain place at a
certain time. They are also the same people that the VLJ-Taxi services are
aimed at so cost isn't the prime mover there.

Joe and Sue vacation taker will like it because while they have to be at the
airport a 3:00 in the morning they are going to be paying less and have a
smaller crowd to deal with at the airport. The fact that they will do what
is needed to get a lower fare has been proven by things like PriceLine where
you don't even know when, other than a 24 hour period, you are going to fly.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> ...to fix the airlines?
>>
>> I mean, really. No politics. No FAA union/management propaganda.
>> Just the facts, ma'am.
>>
>> Here's what I *think* I know:
>>
>> - Major airports (or "hubs") are way over-crowded, beyond capacity
>> - Minor airports (or "spokes") are becoming over-crowded, too
>> - GA airports (like Iowa City) are vastly under-utilized
>
> You should take a look at the trends over the past 5-7 years.
>
> The airlines (major carriers) share of the market is diminishing, and
> the regional's share is booming.

This is because they are turning over the spokes to the regionals. That's
what they should have done from the get-go.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John T wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> That makes sense to me. However, who has the authority to implement
>> it? The FAA? The airport owners? Do you think there might be a
>> backlash from the flying public?
>
> I had similar thoughts. Of course the flying public would hew and cry
> over higher ticket prices. :)
>

What higher prices. You could end up paying less or more depending when you
fly.


>> What if ATC started diverting flights to reliever airports during
>> peak hours at hubs? Isn't that the reason relievers exist?
>
> Good idea, but the major question with this is whether the relievers
> can handle the traffic we need to offload - not to mention adequate
> ground transportation to handle the added influx of passengers.

But if the planes are taking you where you contracted to be taken when you
buy your ticket then the airline is going to have to pay.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> But if the planes are taking you where you contracted to be taken
> when you buy your ticket then the airline is going to have to pay.

....planes are NOT taking...

[Marty Shapiro]

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

> Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>
> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities. I guess no
> one wnats to go to STL.
>
>
>

Go check out the statistics for ATL. The last time I saw them
published, something like 85% of the passengers landing at ATL were there
just to catch a connecting flight. Many years ago it was said that when
someone in the Southeast passed away, the only way to get to heaven or hell
was to connect at ATL.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

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

> John T wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense to me. However, who has the authority to implement
>>> it? The FAA? The airport owners? Do you think there might be a
>>> backlash from the flying public?
>>
>> I had similar thoughts. Of course the flying public would hew and cry
>> over higher ticket prices. :)
>>
>
> What higher prices. You could end up paying less or more depending
> when you fly.
>
>
>>> What if ATC started diverting flights to reliever airports during
>>> peak hours at hubs? Isn't that the reason relievers exist?
>>
>> Good idea, but the major question with this is whether the relievers
>> can handle the traffic we need to offload - not to mention adequate
>> ground transportation to handle the added influx of passengers.
>
> But if the planes are taking you where you contracted to be taken when
> you buy your ticket then the airline is going to have to pay.
>
>
>

Relievers exist to let non-airline traffic have a different airport to
land at rather than the primary airline airport. Most often, they can NOT
handle a jetliner, for example RHV in San Jose. In some cases they can,
but those tend to be used for air freight, for example MHR at Sacramento.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[AustinMN]

On Sep 12, 11:53 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> > High speed rail.
>
> If you think the unions helped crap out the airlines, you should dig into
> how they absolutely trashed the railroads.

While I know the unions had their hand in what happened to the
railroads, the thing that really killed them was trying to compete
with a heavily subsidized interstate highway system.

> > The fact is, airline travel is not the answer for _mass_ transportation.
> > That is why efficiency (hub and spokes) has collided fatally with
> > practical limits (airport capacity and weather).
>
> > The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct the
> > situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would
> > make even a congressman blanche.
>
> Congresscritters NEVER blanche when it comes to spedning other peoples
> money.

I have no doubt that they have unofficial "committees" that just sit
around trying to think up ways to get more of it.

Austin

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" <> wrote

> High speed rail.
>
> The fact is, airline travel is not the answer for _mass_ transportation.
> That is why efficiency (hub and spokes) has collided fatally with
> practical limits (airport capacity and weather).

As you say, the costs to get that up and running rule it out, from the
start.

With the exception of the big east coast cities, the distances rule out HSR,
simply because of the distances, and the lack of people wanting to go to the
other "non large" cities.

Nope, fixing the airlines is what we are stuck with.

Unfortunately, about any fix is going to involve spreading out the loads to
off peak times, which will mean more waiting for the consumer.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>> Gene Seibel wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
>> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities. I guess
>> no one wnats to go to STL.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Go check out the statistics for ATL. The last time I saw them
> published, something like 85% of the passengers landing at ATL were
> there just to catch a connecting flight. Many years ago it was said
> that when someone in the Southeast passed away, the only way to get
> to heaven or hell was to connect at ATL.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I have no problem with that number. But that means with 85,000,000 pax/year
12,000,000 were going to ATL. That is a "pretty good number" in my book.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 9:13 am, Gene Seibel > wrote:
> St Louis bought out 3000 homes and built a billion dollar runway. TWA
> folded, American moved out, and it sits unused right here in the
> middle of the country. Seems it could take some pressure off the
> busier hubs. Went to Operation Rain Check and the controllers begged
> us to use their services to justify their existance.

Problem is, they financed that boondoggle with revenue
bonds, meaning they had to increase gate rental rates
and other fees, so anybody who opens a new hub in
STL gets to pay for the new gold-plated runway.
Because they bought out so much densely populated
real estate and relocated roads, that one patch of
concrete, by itself, cost a fourth as much as the entire
new monster Denver airport, with all its runways,
terminals, highways, and overpriced baggage
mangling system. And the new STL runway is not a
particularly efficient layout, with extraordinarily
long taxi distances to the terminal.

TWA couldn't afford to pay the cost of the new
runway, and American decided they didn't want to.

STL is like a car that's being offered by
the local politicians as: "For sale -- take over
payments". If the guy who's selling it
overpaid for a lemon car, nobody's
going to want to take over those
payments.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> ...to fix the airlines?
>>
>> You should take a look at the trends over the past 5-7 years.
>>
>> The airlines (major carriers) share of the market is diminishing, and
>> the regional's share is booming.
>
> This is because they are turning over the spokes to the regional's. That's
> what they should have done from the get-go.

And the regional's are going into some pretty obscure towns as well as some
suburban locales.

One thing promoting this is that businesses are no longer compelled to
locate in major cities, particularly for their satellite offices. For
example, Elgin, IL is getting a lot of businesses moving from Chicago and
O'Hare.

The costs of doing business out of a major metro area will have as much
impact as the FAA and user fees.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"AustinMN" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 12, 11:53 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>
>> > The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct
>> > the
>> > situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would
>> > make even a congressman blanch.
>>
>> Congresscritters NEVER blanch when it comes to spending other peoples
>> money.
>
> I have no doubt that they have unofficial "committees" that just sit
> around trying to think up ways to get more of it.
>

And a whole slew of official ones, too. For instance, the Senate Finance
Committee, as well as whole slew of sub-committees.

And then there's the inevitable cost-overruns as politically favored types
get sugar-daddy contracts. Denver's DIA airport is a great example of cost
overruns and ineptitude. Not to mention the politically favored developers
that got to buy up the land from the old Stapleton airport for really cheap,
after the taxpayers paid for most of the cleanup.

I don't recall the numbers, but Boston's system is a good example of MT
insanity. So are Denver's, Phoenix's and Portland's. From what I can tell,
Portland's was supposed to cost something like $300 million and carry 25% of
traffic (promises...promises), and is now approaching $5 BILLION and
carrying less than 8%. Denver's and Phoenix's are likely to be even worse.

So, imagine that on a NATIONAL scale. Say, a couple $TRILLION?

Just my NSHO.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Morgans" wrote:

> Nope, fixing the airlines is what we are stuck with.
>
> Unfortunately, about any fix is going to involve spreading out the loads to
> off peak times, which will mean more waiting for the consumer.

People want what is (currently) impossible: cheap, reliable air transportation
that departs and arrives *reliably* on tight schedules.

High speed rail might have provided that; it is hard to see how mass air
transit ever will.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The USA isn't France. In 2005 the average airline passenger trip length was
> 866 miles. That's around 1393.7 km. So our average trip length is longer
> than your faster cheaper target.

The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to take the
plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so about the only time
you spend on a train trip is time actually riding on the train. Airplanes, on
the other hand, have a built-in delay of two hours or so at both ends of the
trip, irrespective of time in the air. So a train trip that requires four
hours or less always wins over a plane trip, no matter what the distance
involved.

In general, I find that the threshold seems to be around 1000 km, which is a
bit under four hours at typical high-speed-rail speeds. If you run the trains
faster, this threshold rises; if you run them slower (for example at U.S.
speeds), it shrinks until it's no longer worth discussion.

A high-speed-train could connect Los Angeles and San Diego in about 40
minutes. This beats the 4 hours of plane travel by a handsome margin. It
doesn't matter whether it's the U.S. or Europe, the numbers work the same way.
The U.S. resists such ideas for reasons unconnected with the actual efficiency
and travel time.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The breakeven point is probably closer to 500.

Not for high-speed trains. I'd say it's actually a bit more than 1000 km now.

[Denny]

Ahhh jeez guys, the solution is so simple... Reinstitute the CAA with
all their original powers to regulate the airlines and presto-chango:
1 Ticket fees will triple or quadruple
2 Stu's will be wearing semi military uniforms with pert little hats
and they will be young, single, and nubile
3 The number of daily flights will be regulated by law
4 The airline airports will become quiet and dusty places inbetween
the 6 daily flights allowed
5 Leave it to Beaver will begin a new series
6 The Contrail Conspiracists will all have to move in with the TWA800
group
7. Nuculer families will once again be a working father and a
homemaker mom
8 Gas will be under a dollar a gallon

I could go on and on, but I don't want to dazzle you too much... Just
think it through...

denny

[Maxwell]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>>
>>> The breakeven point is probably closer to 500.
>>
>> Not for high-speed trains. I'd say it's actually a bit more than 1000
>> km now.
>
> YMMV :)
>

I can assure you, his milage always varies.

[Jay Honeck]

> The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to take the
> plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so about the only time
> you spend on a train trip is time actually riding on the train. Airplanes, on
> the other hand, have a built-in delay of two hours or so at both ends of the
> trip, irrespective of time in the air.

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
aircraft.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
service.

Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
"crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
status quo.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to
>> take the plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so
>> about the only time you spend on a train trip is time actually
>> riding on the train. Airplanes, on the other hand, have a built-in
>> delay of two hours or so at both ends of the trip, irrespective of
>> time in the air.
>
> Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
> aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
> from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)
>
> This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
> is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
> grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
> aircraft.
>
> When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
> Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
> US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
> airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
> gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)
>
> When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
> in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
> the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
> big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
> Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
> service.
>
> Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
> problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
> the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
> "crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
> status quo.

Iowa city needs to get its act together and get on the Essential Air Service
gravy boat.

My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
different than charter flights have been for years?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Eclipse is on the financial bubble. They need to sell around 500-600
> planes a year to even begin to recoup their costs, and they have had a lot
> of setbacks like the engines and avionics. If the engine and avionics
> encounter difficulties, then the whole production process comes to a
> grinding halt, with no cash inflow. Unless they get a lot more venture
> capital (or is it capitol), they won't be around for long. Same goes for
> all of the other VLJ's, except possibly Cirrus or Cessna.

Cessna's Mustang is not, technically, a VLJ, and Cirrus' VLJ is going to be
a lot further out than Eclipse. Eclipse has solved it's engine problems and
it's avionics solution is well on it's way to being solved. They've
delieverd 11 so far, and have had their first revenue flight.

Eclipse has over 2000 orders booked and just got about 300 more from some
group in Eastern Europe.

> Then, watch for Honda to let the dust settle and have them introduce their
> own jet- they obviously can bankroll the whole process from start to
> finish. If it has the same reliability, fit, and finish of an Acura, it
> will be a winner, despite a more realistic and higher price point. I plan
> on buying a used TBM at that point, since their value will likely drop
> tremendously when this happens.

Honda's VLJ is nice, but at nearly $4M, it's nearly the same price as a CJ1.
An Eclipse 500 goes, right now, for about $1.8M with most options, and about
$1.9M for a Part 135 capable airplane.

Eclipse also has a "By the hour" package that will, ostensibly, result in an
per hour operating cost of around $415/hour, assuming Jet-A stays at about
$4.25 a gallon. Of course, at 55-75 GPH, if fuel prices DO climb, Eclipse
will have even more of an advantage over its competitors.

My take is that the VLJ market is going to replace the piston twins, and
possibly many turboprops. Cirrus will get the short-haul air taxi market and
Eclipse will get the longer hauls and those when they need to top terrain
and weather.

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
> different than charter flights have been for years?

Faster than most currently available air-taxi aircraft and probably much
more expensive!

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Eclipse will survive only if they can deliver 500-600 planes a year, and
> if they do not encounter engine or avionics issues along the way (as they
> already have). Their current production is less than around 20-30 a month,
> not enough to keep the cash flow going for very long.

Well, they have 2000 on order, so 500-600 a year isn't going to be to tough
once they get going.

Read their whitepaper on their production methods.

>
> There is also no way an Eclipse will cost $415 an hour, even if flown
> hundreds of hours a year. Fuel alone will cost $300 an hour,

At full power, it's 90gph; at cruise it's 55 to 60. That 90gph is when it
climbs to FL350 in 21 minutes.

> and insurance for 2 million is around $25,000 a year.

Insurance is 32,000K divided by an estimated 500 hrs a year = $64/hr.

> At 200 hours a year this already

Not too many jets fly 200 hours a year - more like 500, or more for air
taxi/charter.

> adds up to over $500/hr. Figure any regular maintenance and engine
> reserves, hangar, etc, and it'll be at least $750 an hour.

Maint and reserves come under their "Jet Complete" program which is $150/hr
and covers scheduled and unscheduled maintenace, flight support, recurrent
training, a fuel program that discounts fuel 40 cents a gallon, AOG over
night, nav and WX database updates, rental engine coverage, etc.

As for engine TBO reserve, it's going to be far less than a TP engine (with
prop OH)or a Williams FJ-44 or 33.


> They are also range and payload limited, particularly compared to
> turboprops.

Their NBAA ranges is 1125 nm, for a King Air C90 it's 831.

> They are small and tight inside, especially compared to a King Air.

They have more leg room (18") than a King Air C90 (7.5"), are 1.2 inches
narrower, and 4" shorter (47" vs 51") They fly 100 kts faster, and climb
nearly twice as fast, s your trip time is less.
>
> Their market may be smaller than they originally proposed, and with lots
> of competition. Unless they ramp up significantly and start rolling a lot
> of planes out the door soon, they will run out of cash unless they get a
> ton more venture capital.

Having Bill Gates, whathisface Allen, and several other high rollers is a
pretty good influx of capital.

[Montblack]

(What Denny says)
"Ahhh jeez guys, the solution is so simple... Reinstitute the CAA with all
their original powers to regulate the airlines and presto-chango:
.....<snip>...."


(What Montblack hears)
"blah blah NUBILE blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah NUBILE blah blah
blah blah blah..."

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
> aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
> from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

If commercial flights were as easy as flights in a private plane (and they
once were, although they aren't now), I'd still be finding excuses to fly from
place to place, as flying itself is fun. But flying is only the tip of the
iceberg nowadays, and the rest of the overhead completely erases the fun of
flight on a commercial airliner.

> When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
> Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
> US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
> airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
> gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

Some commercial airline flights are the same way, depending on the route.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
>> aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to
>> Florida from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)
>
> If commercial flights were as easy as flights in a private plane (and
> they once were, although they aren't now), I'd still be finding
> excuses to fly from place to place, as flying itself is fun. But
> flying is only the tip of the iceberg nowadays, and the rest of the
> overhead completely erases the fun of flight on a commercial airliner.
>
>> When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
>> Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
>> US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
>> airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
>> gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)
>
> Some commercial airline flights are the same way, depending on the
> route.
>


How wouls you know, you don't fly lightplanes or airliners, fjukktard


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke writes:
>
>> The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to
>> correct the situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to
>> support HSR would make even a congressman blanche. So we are stuck
>> with automobiles, which are inneficient, and airlines, which are
>> unreliable.
>
> It's being done in Europe. What prevents it from being done in the
> U.S.?
>

Wrong again **** for brains

Bertie

[Mike Isaksen]

"Paul Tomblin" ...
> Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
> hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the
> starting bid "free".

Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago, didn't somebody sue LGA
(nyc port authority) when they restricted the gate slots,... and won??

The details I recall is AirTran had half a dozen cheap flights out of ISP
(Long Island) to Atlanta and Florida. Then the lawsuit concludes, AirTran
moves 35 miles west to LGA turning ISP into temporary wasteland. The next
thing I start hearing about daily flight delays at LGA, even on the good wx
days.

Also, I remember JFK seldom with delays before the JetBlue expansion.

So I support your idea, but I'm not sure I'll fly.

[John T]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message

>
> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities.

No, it doesn't. FedEx uses the H&S, for example, with a *very* limited
number of passengers. The model is merely a means of moving large numbers of
objects (passengers, freight, etc.) efficiently.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike Isaksen" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" ...
>> Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
>> hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the
>> starting bid "free".
>
>Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago, didn't somebody sue LGA
>(nyc port authority) when they restricted the gate slots,... and won??

Isn't that what the FAA does when it does flow management in bad weather?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that
gives everything its value." - Thomas Paine.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ...
>> Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago,
>> didn't somebody sue LGA (nyc port authority) when they
>> restricted the gate/slots,... and won??
>
> Isn't that what the FAA does when it does flow management in bad weather?
>

Right, and I thought that morphed into the Gate Hold procedure following the
Avianca (oops, I circled so long I may have just run out of fuel) crash.

But what I'm recalling is a definite hold on empty gates at LGA. Lots of
airlines wanted a gate & slot, but some entity would not allow access to
them and someone sued. Then the flood gates opened to the smaller airlines,
and now if a problem arrises there isn't an open gate to return to. Well,
that last sentence may be an exaggeration, but not by much. I haven't found
the web reference yet, still looking.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:29:08 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>
>Right, and I thought that morphed into the Gate Hold procedure following the
>Avianca (oops, I circled so long I may have just run out of fuel) crash.

You mean the guy who never said "Emergency", and landed in residential
Queens?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John T wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>
>>
>> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
>> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities.
>
> No, it doesn't. FedEx uses the H&S, for example, with a *very* limited
> number of passengers. The model is merely a means of moving large
> numbers of objects (passengers, freight, etc.) efficiently.

FedEx uses the 'Mother of All H&S" systems but overnight envelopes don't
mind sitting in a box on the ramp for a couple of hours.

Name me one passenger airline that's main hub isn't co-located with a high
passenger target location.

If this wasn't the case the airlines would have all built airports out in
the middle of nowhere for next to nothing and Hub'd out them.

[John T]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message

>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
>>> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. FedEx uses the H&S, for example, with a *very*
>> limited number of passengers. The model is merely a means of moving
>> large numbers of objects (passengers, freight, etc.) efficiently.
>
> FedEx uses the 'Mother of All H&S" systems but overnight envelopes
> don't mind sitting in a box on the ramp for a couple of hours.
>
> Name me one passenger airline that's main hub isn't co-located with a
> high passenger target location.
>
> If this wasn't the case the airlines would have all built airports
> out in the middle of nowhere for next to nothing and Hub'd out them.

The H&S model itself does not require a passenger magnet location. I'm not
suggesting the airlines have implemented the model to the contrary, but
there's nothing preventing a hub from being at any airport with the size to
handle the planes required and accommodations for the transient population.

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

[Al G[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to
>>> take the plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so
>>> about the only time you spend on a train trip is time actually
>>> riding on the train. Airplanes, on the other hand, have a built-in
>>> delay of two hours or so at both ends of the trip, irrespective of
>>> time in the air.
>>
>> Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
>> aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
>> from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)
>>
>> This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
>> is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
>> grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
>> aircraft.
>>
>> When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
>> Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
>> US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
>> airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
>> gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)
>>
>> When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
>> in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
>> the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
>> big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
>> Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
>> service.
>>
>> Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
>> problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
>> the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
>> "crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
>> status quo.
>
> Iowa city needs to get its act together and get on the Essential Air
> Service gravy boat.
>
> My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
> different than charter flights have been for years?

I've been asking myself this, and there are a couple of things that
could help.

1. The airport security crap has gotten so bad and so slow, that there
are a lot more people out there willing to spend some extra bucks on
Charters or Fractional ownership. While small, these aircraft are much nicer
than a business class seat 64F.

2. As someone mentioned earlier, airlines have a built in delay at both
ends, and a hub in the middle. Point to Point, using all of those unused, no
slot, under 7000' airports can give you one hell of an advantage.

3. The aircraft are smaller, more efficient, and burn way less fuel than
the old Lear.

4. They will, however, have almost the same block time as the Lear, and
quicker than an airline.

5. With enough of them, left around the country from their last trip,
response time to smalltown, anywhere could still be fairly good. If crews
are left at the last destination until called, the only deadhead is the last
trip of your 2 week shift.

6. There are a lot of very experienced 60+ year old airline captains in
excellent health running around out there.

Does all of this add up to a workable economic model? I hope so.

Al G

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:20:19 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>John T wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
>>> good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. FedEx uses the H&S, for example, with a *very* limited
>> number of passengers. The model is merely a means of moving large
>> numbers of objects (passengers, freight, etc.) efficiently.
>
>FedEx uses the 'Mother of All H&S" systems but overnight envelopes don't
>mind sitting in a box on the ramp for a couple of hours.
>
>Name me one passenger airline that's main hub isn't co-located with a high
>passenger target location.
>
>If this wasn't the case the airlines would have all built airports out in
>the middle of nowhere for next to nothing and Hub'd out them.

Great idea. Scrap ORD and put it's replacement Geographically centered
in the US. *Relatively* cheap land, few neighbors to complain, no
ground traffic problems as there's no place to go, less air congestion
as there is little local traffic and the bizjets are going to real
airports at their destinations. So now we can be more comfortable
gazing at Denny's NUBILE stewardesses in short skirts.

BTW with security, traveling by road into Canada is now as bad as
flying with the long waits.
>
Roger (K8RI)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it
>> any different than charter flights have been for years?
>
> I've been asking myself this, and there are a couple of things that
> could help.
>
> 1. The airport security crap has gotten so bad and so slow, that there
> are a lot more people out there willing to spend some extra bucks on
> Charters or Fractional ownership. While small, these aircraft are much
> nicer than a business class seat 64F.
>
> 2. As someone mentioned earlier, airlines have a built in delay at both
> ends, and a hub in the middle. Point to Point, using all of those unused,
> no slot, under 7000' airports can give you one hell of an advantage.
>
> 3. The aircraft are smaller, more efficient, and burn way less fuel
> than the old Lear.
>
> 4. They will, however, have almost the same block time as the Lear, and
> quicker than an airline.
>
> 5. With enough of them, left around the country from their last trip,
> response time to smalltown, anywhere could still be fairly good. If crews
> are left at the last destination until called, the only deadhead is the
> last trip of your 2 week shift.
>
> 6. There are a lot of very experienced 60+ year old airline captains in
> excellent health running around out there.
>
> Does all of this add up to a workable economic model? I hope so.
>
Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more passengers?
Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a taxicab?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
> Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
> passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
> taxicab?

They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay for the
empty seats any way.

That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose money. It seems like
the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by airlines.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote

> That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
> from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
> seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they (___loose___?) money. It
> seems like the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by
> airlines.

If there is any of that "loose" money floating around in the VLJ's, I'll
take some! <VBG>

Sorry Gig, but I had to do that! I can't believe you let "that one" slip by
your proof reading! ;-))

That is a concern for me, too. I believe it may be rough for a while, to
keep (or get) the seats full.

I think they are counting on the first someone needing to go, and enough
others wanting to go (in the same time frame) that are willing to pay the
premium price for the ride and filling some more of the seats.

I would think that there would be some premium included in the seat price
structure, if the first person needs to go right away, and not be willing to
be flexible in the departure time and destinations. (to help with filling
some more of the seats) If not, there may be tough times ahead, indeed.
--
Jim in NC

[Al G[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>> Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
>> passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
>> taxicab?
>
> They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay for
> the empty seats any way.
>
> That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
> from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
> seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose money. It seems
> like the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by
> airlines.
>
And that may be just the ticket. Riding an airline isn't as much fun as
it was when I was a kid. VLJ's convenience could be just short of owning
your own, at a cost of only 2-3 times an airline fare. Like you said, it
depends alot on whether you are traveling alone. I had to fly my family from
Roseburg, Or to Grand Junction, Co, on short notice, for my Dad's funeral.
It was not quick, not easy, and not cheap,( 2-3amu's). A VLJ would have been
my choice.

Al G

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Al G wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>> Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
>>> passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
>>> taxicab?
>>
>> They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay
>> for the empty seats any way.
>>
>> That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to
>> fly from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging
>> me for one seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose
>> money. It seems like the routes where it might work for VLJ are
>> already served by airlines.
>>
> And that may be just the ticket. Riding an airline isn't as much
> fun as it was when I was a kid. VLJ's convenience could be just short
> of owning your own, at a cost of only 2-3 times an airline fare. Like
> you said, it depends alot on whether you are traveling alone. I had
> to fly my family from Roseburg, Or to Grand Junction, Co, on short
> notice, for my Dad's funeral. It was not quick, not easy, and not
> cheap,( 2-3amu's). A VLJ would have been my choice.
>
> Al G

So, did you consider using a charter flight for the trip? There's no reason
a VLJ should be any cheaper than than a Cessna 414 charter. And while it
isn't going to be as fast it would have been faster on that trip than the
airlines.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Al G wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
>>>> passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
>>>> taxicab?
>>>
>>> They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay
>>> for the empty seats any way.
>>>
>>> That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to
>>> fly from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging
>>> me for one seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose
>>> money. It seems like the routes where it might work for VLJ are
>>> already served by airlines.
>>>
>> And that may be just the ticket. Riding an airline isn't as much
>> fun as it was when I was a kid. VLJ's convenience could be just short
>> of owning your own, at a cost of only 2-3 times an airline fare. Like
>> you said, it depends alot on whether you are traveling alone. I had
>> to fly my family from Roseburg, Or to Grand Junction, Co, on short
>> notice, for my Dad's funeral. It was not quick, not easy, and not
>> cheap,( 2-3amu's). A VLJ would have been my choice.
>>
>> Al G
>
> So, did you consider using a charter flight for the trip? There's no
> reason a VLJ should be any cheaper than than a Cessna 414 charter. And
> while it isn't going to be as fast it would have been faster on that trip
> than the airlines.
>
I did consider it. I called 2 outfits, 1 in Medford, and 1 in Eugene.
Neither returned my call. I checked with FlightCraft in PDX, but their quote
was a King Air, and with the repositioning from PDX, and the pilot standby,
it got impractical. We drove to Eug, united to Den, some commuter to GJT. On
the way back it was GJT-> DEN-> SLC ->EUG drive to RBG. I was searched twice
down to the shoes. GJT -> DEN wasn't even westbound. We spent most of our
time waiting in airports. I do some flying for a guy now, and our last trip
to GJT was IFR direct @ 210 in a P210. 4:17, no searches, no waiting. It is
a long flight, and a little cramped, but compared with the airlines it was
Wonderful. We could drive from the house, park at the FBO, and simply walk
over to our aircraft and go. At the other end we parked the aircraft got in
the car and left.

I think one of the strongest arguments for VLJ is the incredible
inconvenience of the airlines, particularly for businesses where more than 1
are going.

If a VLJ was flying the "Average" passengers itinerary, how much shorter
on the average, would the trip be? This trip GJT,DEN,SLC,EUG,RBG was 183 +
338 + 535 + 53 = 1109. Direct is 712nm, so the VLJ can cut 36% of the
distance by flying only what needs to be flown. I know it will be more
expensive for the aircraft. But when you start to consider ALL the costs
from parking to time, convenience may win out.

Al G

[aaronw]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:20:19 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>Name me one passenger airline that's main hub isn't co-located with a high
>passenger target location.

Depending on your definition of 'high', Charlotte, NC (USAirways) is
probably the most disproportionate hub size to city size.

-aw