Re: ATC mutiny brewing

[YougotitSam]

B wrote:
> Password wrote:
>> A mutiny is brewing amongst FAA employees and in the Air Traffic
>> system. Buckle your seat belts pilots it's going to get rough
>
> My previous post of yesterday disappeared. I have it on rumor that the
> FAA has a well-developed plan to turn control of air traffic in this
> country to the US Air Force.


I spent part of my life working for the FAA and part of my
life in the Air Force. Knowing what I know the Air Force
would do a much better job keeping the sky's safe and
efficient. The FAA is out of control and has lost it's
mission focus.

Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in
mind we have RECORD airline delays and FAA employee morale
is the lowest it has ever been

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

"There are a lot of women in technical positions and
management of technical positions within the FAA, and that’s
a source of pleasure.Ann Azevedo, chief scientific and
technical advisor for aircraft safety analysis, New England
Region

Kinda gives you a warm funny huh? Think about this when you
are IFR in pea soup.

[Ron Natalie]

YougotitSam wrote:

>
> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
> RECORD airline delays

Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
congress and the executive branch would never allow.

[Denny]

On Oct 7, 11:21 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> YougotitSam wrote:
>
> > Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
> > RECORD airline delays
>
> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
> congress and the executive branch would never allow.

Yeah, we would have to bring back the CAA.... Airline slots by
regulation... Stu's would have to have RN degrees... You would be
expected to wear a suit and tie and hat, or full length dress and a
hat, to board... Children would be in fresh clothes with their hair
combed... The Pilots would stand by the door and greet passengers as
they board...
It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
call airline travel today...

denny

[FAA EEO]

Denny wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:21 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
>>> RECORD airline delays
>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>> congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>
> Yeah, we would have to bring back the CAA.... Airline slots by
> regulation... Stu's would have to have RN degrees... You would be
> expected to wear a suit and tie and hat, or full length dress and a
> hat, to board... Children would be in fresh clothes with their hair
> combed... The Pilots would stand by the door and greet passengers as
> they board...
> It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
> call airline travel today...
>
> denny
>

My son flew into Atlanta on a discount airline(Air Tran)
with one of those short notice tickets that are available
for Saturday travel recently. I live several hours from
Atlanta so the drive to pick him up was long but he saved a
ton of money on his ticket so it was worth.

I whipped into the North terminal at Atlanta
Hatsfield-Jacksooon around 730PM (His flight was late) and
looked for him for he was traveling light with no checked
baggage. I swear to God I thought I hit a Greyhound bus
station in Detroit. There was nothing but a sea of ghetto
thug blacks milling around. My son was a grain of salt in a
sea of pepper and not hard to spot. He jumped in and we
bolted out fast.

It is so sad and unbelievable that a once great Southern
City like Atlanta has digressed into Nigeria and looks like
some 3rd world **** hole in Africa. I will never fly through
that ghetto airport again. I would rather spend the extra
money and use another location from now on. I did not feel
safe nor did I feel safe for my son.

I remember the Pan-AM 707 and the classy food and service
and the adventure of flying. Now the airlines(Under Black
and Female)FAA management have become the bus routes of the
air. Discount flying tubes of **** crammed with thugs and
drug runners. Specially in and out of Atlanta.

ALL in the name of greed, incompetency and political
correctness. Our FAA has failed miserably with the airlines
and air traffic control.

So sad. Maybe somebody will develop a new airline that
requires you wear a coat and tie and treats you like a human?

[Frankly Yours]

FAA EEO wrote:

>>
>
> My son flew into Atlanta on a discount airline(Air Tran) with one of
> those short notice tickets that are available
> for Saturday travel recently. I live several hours from Atlanta so the
> drive to pick him up was long but he saved a ton of money on his ticket
> so it was worth.
>
> I whipped into the North terminal at Atlanta Hatsfield-Jacksooon around
> 730PM (His flight was late) and looked for him for he was traveling
> light with no checked baggage. I swear to God I thought I hit a
> Greyhound bus station in Detroit. There was nothing but a sea of ghetto
> thug blacks milling around. My son was a grain of salt in a sea of
> pepper and not hard to spot. He jumped in and we bolted out fast.

Too bad you won't acknowledge that you are not your son's real father.
He enjoys roaming through the ATL terminal hoping he might someday find
his real daddy.

Your wife just can't tell him who his daddy is because she had (and
still has) so, so many black lovers behind your white trash back.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Denny > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:21 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>
>> > Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
>> > RECORD airline delays
>>
>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>> congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>
> Yeah, we would have to bring back the CAA.... Airline slots by
> regulation... Stu's would have to have RN degrees... You would be
> expected to wear a suit and tie and hat, or full length dress and a
> hat, to board... Children would be in fresh clothes with their hair
> combed... The Pilots would stand by the door and greet passengers as
> they board...
> It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
> call airline travel today...

It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
was used to refer to the leisure rich?

Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> YougotitSam wrote:
>
>>
>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
>> RECORD airline delays
>
> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
> congress and the executive branch would never allow.

Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions have
opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a revenue stream
that allows such modernization.

[Sam Spade]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>YougotitSam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we have
>>>RECORD airline delays
>>
>>Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>>record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>>procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>>congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>
>
> Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions have
> opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a revenue stream
> that allows such modernization.
>
>
It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major airports.

[FAA EEO]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we
>>>> have RECORD airline delays
>>>
>>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>>> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>>> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>>> congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>>
>>
>> Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions have
>> opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a revenue
>> stream that allows such modernization.
>>
> It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major airports.

Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the
delays there now are WORSE than when they had 4 runways.
Apparently it is more than just a runway problem

The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with
incompetent women and minorities in senior management positions.

Dance around it all day but the problem is
BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT

PERIOD

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.student Denny > wrote:
>> It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
>> call airline travel today...
>
> It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
> lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
> was used to refer to the leisure rich?
>
> Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
> top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

Quite.

One has to wonder how a high priced airline would fare in today's market of
Expedia and Orbitz and people shopping to knock off a few dollars off their
ticket price.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Matt Barrow > wrote:
> "Michael Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.aviation.student Denny > wrote:
>>> It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
>>> call airline travel today...
>>
>> It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
>> lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
>> was used to refer to the leisure rich?
>>
>> Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
>> top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.
>
> Quite.
>
> One has to wonder how a high priced airline would fare in today's market of
> Expedia and Orbitz and people shopping to knock off a few dollars off their
> ticket price.

No need to wonder, just watch the smaller airlines which cut amenities to
the absolute bone totally eat the majors alive.

For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still get
stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still cheaper than
flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so nostalgic for.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[John Godwin]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
> get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
> cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
> nostalgic for.
>
The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
is a crap shoot nowadays.

--

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
John Godwin > wrote:

> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
> > For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
> > get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
> > cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
> > nostalgic for.
> >
> The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
> significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
> is a crap shoot nowadays.
>
> --

United surely has that reputation these days.

Sad, to me anyway, as United was my first flying experience, in 1956.

I was six, and sent in the care of the cabin crew from L.A. to Portland,
OR, in a DC-7. I still remember getting to sit in the observation
section in the tail, watching the cars and houses slide astern.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:13:15 -0500, Michael Ash >
wrote:
>
>It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
>lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
>was used to refer to the leisure rich?

Was? <G>

>Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
>top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

Travel across the field to the charter terminal, or visit your local
"executive" airport. Also, research "NetJet" charters and "shared"
charters.

That's where lots of airline profits went post-9/11. No security
hassles, no waiting in long lines while the cattle deal with their own
security hassles (Why can't I carry my spear gun or taser in the
cabin?), easy parking, and a perceived lower likelyhood of somebody
messing with the airplane to start with. On a shared charter, you
might even pick the departure time.

Many of the folks you see these days in First Class didn't buy the
ticket, they exchanged FF miles, or got them through some corporate
travel come-on. The executives, athletes, celebrities, all far below
the leisure rich, are over at the private side of the airport.

Remember 20 years ago, when we'd see famous folks in the airport while
we waited to board?

Once upon a time, the full-fare coach and first class passengers paid
lots of costs, and the super-saver fare was profit in empty seats. Not
to mention an enormous amount of mail, banking documents, and express
freight. Most of which now either moves by FedEx or UPS, or not at
all, as it's gone electronic.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student John Godwin > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
>> get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
>> cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
>> nostalgic for.
>>
> The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
> significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
> is a crap shoot nowadays.

Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to hear that
about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do better.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:13:15 -0500, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>>
>>It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
>>lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
>>was used to refer to the leisure rich?
>
> Was? <G>

It's just not used much at all anymore. To the extent that it is used, it
still means that.

>>Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
>>top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.
>
> Travel across the field to the charter terminal, or visit your local
> "executive" airport. Also, research "NetJet" charters and "shared"
> charters.
[snip]

You're right that the "bygone" service still exists if you can find it and
afford it. Which is pretty much my point. The people whining and
complaining that airline service isn't what it used to be are ignoring the
fact that if they pay what airline service used to cost they can get the
kind of service they want too. People just want something for nothing,
top-class service with $80 bargain-basement roundtrip tickets, which
obviously just isn't going to happen.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[John Godwin]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to
> hear that about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do
> better.
>
It was a coast-to-coast domestic flight.

For International, I "took a chance and flew Air France" (a very
enjoyable flight).

I would probably take Aeroflot before considering United. <g>


--

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student John Godwin > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to
>> hear that about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do
>> better.
>>
> It was a coast-to-coast domestic flight.
>
> For International, I "took a chance and flew Air France" (a very
> enjoyable flight).

The foreign national carriers are often very nice. Being subsidized and
not having to turn a profit has certain advantages, especially if you
aren't paying taxes in the country in question.

> I would probably take Aeroflot before considering United. <g>

Can't say I'd blame you. I think my last experience with United resulted
in them stranding me in Beijing for a day after they cancelled my flight
during the SARS scare and didn't bother to inform me of the change.
Although other airliners are often scarcely better, and these bad
experiences are frequently the luck of the draw more than anything.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Mike[_4_]]

FAA EEO wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>
>>>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we
>>>>> have RECORD airline delays
>>>>
>>>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>>>> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>>>> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>>>> congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions have
>>> opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a revenue
>>> stream that allows such modernization.
>>>
>> It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major airports.
>
> Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the delays there now
> are WORSE than when they had 4 runways. Apparently it is more than just
> a runway problem
>
> The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with incompetent
> women and minorities in senior management positions.
>
> Dance around it all day but the problem is
> BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT
>
> PERIOD
The truth of the matter...
yes, Atlanta and the airlines (not the FAA) spent $billions on the 5th
runway. Flight delays immediately decreased significantly. A couple of
months later one of the otehr 4 runways was shut down for about 5 or 6
months for "renovations". During that time the airport again operated
with 4 runways and delays did increase to even worse than before the 5th
runway was completed. Once that runway was put back into service,
delays dropped back to the lower, almost acceptable, levels. Can you
imagine the problems if the 5th runway had not been built and Atlanta
had to operate on 3 runways while the one was renovated.
The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
something has to give.
Mike: N44979 Archer II at RYY

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[FAA Civil Rights]

Mike wrote:
> FAA EEO wrote:
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>
>>>>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind
>>>>>> we have RECORD airline delays
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
>>>>> record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
>>>>> procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
>>>>> congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions
>>>> have opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a
>>>> revenue stream that allows such modernization.
>>>>
>>> It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major
>>> airports.
>>
>> Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the delays there
>> now are WORSE than when they had 4 runways. Apparently it is more than
>> just a runway problem
>>
>> The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with incompetent
>> women and minorities in senior management positions.
>>
>> Dance around it all day but the problem is
>> BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT
>>
>> PERIOD
> The truth of the matter...
> yes, Atlanta and the airlines (not the FAA) spent $billions on the 5th
> runway. Flight delays immediately decreased significantly. A couple of
> months later one of the otehr 4 runways was shut down for about 5 or 6
> months for "renovations". During that time the airport again operated
> with 4 runways and delays did increase to even worse than before the 5th
> runway was completed. Once that runway was put back into service,
> delays dropped back to the lower, almost acceptable, levels. Can you
> imagine the problems if the 5th runway had not been built and Atlanta
> had to operate on 3 runways while the one was renovated.
> The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
> more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
> runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
> passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
> something has to give.
> Mike: N44979 Archer II at RYY
>

The ATL 10/28 was originally supposed to be a commuter
runway only. The Federal Government or FAA whatever you want
to call it kicked in quite a bit of the money also. I still
say you can build 50 new runways but if you can't modernize
and you treat your key personnel like crap it won't matter
what you do. The FAA has ruined the controller relationship
and caved into big contractors and purchased crap equipment
that has to be re-engineered in the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ7h1ETVTBs

Unqualified and Incompetent FAA Management has led to the
mess the ATC system is in. I am not sure short of a NASA
type overhaul like after the shuttle Challenger blew up if
anything of substance will be done. Sadly the FAA has not
had it's Challenger. Yet.

Here is the FAA priority with our tax money now.I am not
sure what this link has to do with Air Safety but
the FAA cares more about this crap than their mission now.
Most of the FAA is consumed with political correctness and
could care less about aviation. It's all about Kumbaya and
Diversity. The Emperor has no clothes.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:43:27 -0400, Mike > wrote
in >:

>The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
>more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
>runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
>passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
>something has to give.

It would appear that the majority of Boeing's airliner production is
the 737 (118 to 215 seats*) currently:

Boeing Reports Third-Quarter 2007 Deliveries

CHICAGO, Oct. 04, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today
announced deliveries across its commercial and defense operations
for the third quarter of 2007.

Major program deliveries during the third quarter were as follows:

Major Programs 3rd Quarter
2007 Year-to-Date
2007
Commercial Airplanes Programs
737 81 250
747 5 12
767 3 9
777 20 58
Total 109 329

Integrated Defense Systems Programs
Apache (New Builds)
9 17
Chinook (New Builds)
1 7
C-17
4 12
C-32/C-40 0 2
F/A-18E/F and EA-18G 11 33
Satellites (Government & Commercial) 1 4
T-45TS 2 7
F-15 3 6
Delta II - Commercial 1 2
###


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

FAA Civil Rights > wrote in
:

> Mike wrote:
>> FAA EEO wrote:
>>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>>>>> m...
>>>>>
>>>>>> YougotitSam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind
>>>>>>> we have RECORD airline delays
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix
>>>>>> the record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into
>>>>>> place procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off
>>>>>> flaks in congress and the executive branch would never allow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions
>>>>> have opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a
>>>>> revenue stream that allows such modernization.
>>>>>
>>>> It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major
>>>> airports.
>>>
>>> Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the delays there
>>> now are WORSE than when they had 4 runways. Apparently it is more
>>> than just a runway problem
>>>
>>> The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with
>>> incompetent women and minorities in senior management positions.
>>>
>>> Dance around it all day but the problem is
>>> BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT
>>>
>>> PERIOD
>> The truth of the matter...
>> yes, Atlanta and the airlines (not the FAA) spent $billions on the
>> 5th runway. Flight delays immediately decreased significantly. A
>> couple of months later one of the otehr 4 runways was shut down for
>> about 5 or 6 months for "renovations". During that time the airport
>> again operated with 4 runways and delays did increase to even worse
>> than before the 5th runway was completed. Once that runway was put
>> back into service, delays dropped back to the lower, almost
>> acceptable, levels. Can you imagine the problems if the 5th runway
>> had not been built and Atlanta had to operate on 3 runways while the
>> one was renovated. The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline
>> scheduling and use of more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs
>> take essentially the same runway space as traditional jets and only
>> carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many passangers. More airline flights trying to
>> use the same runways, so something has to give.
>> Mike: N44979 Archer II at RYY
>>
>
> The ATL 10/28 was originally supposed to be a commuter
> runway only. The Federal Government or FAA whatever you want
> to call it kicked in quite a bit of the money also. I still
> say you can build 50 new runways but if you can't modernize
> and you treat your key personnel like crap it won't matter
> what you do. T



Yes, and thank God you're saying it in usenet.


Bertie

[Mike[_4_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:43:27 -0400, Mike > wrote
> in >:
>
>> The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
>> more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
>> runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
>> passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
>> something has to give.
>
> It would appear that the majority of Boeing's airliner production is
> the 737 (118 to 215 seats*) currently:
>
> Boeing Reports Third-Quarter 2007 Deliveries
>
> CHICAGO, Oct. 04, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today
> announced deliveries across its commercial and defense operations
> for the third quarter of 2007.
>
> Major program deliveries during the third quarter were as follows:
>
> Major Programs 3rd Quarter
> 2007 Year-to-Date
> 2007
> Commercial Airplanes Programs
> 737 81 250
> 747 5 12
> 767 3 9
> 777 20 58
> Total 109 329
>
> Integrated Defense Systems Programs
> Apache (New Builds)
> 9 17
> Chinook (New Builds)
> 1 7
> C-17
> 4 12
> C-32/C-40 0 2
> F/A-18E/F and EA-18G 11 33
> Satellites (Government & Commercial) 1 4
> T-45TS 2 7
> F-15 3 6
> Delta II - Commercial 1 2
> ###
>
>
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
Yes, the 737 has been the most popular passenger jet for some time now.
But, the number of aircraft delivered by Boeing is not very
signicicant... Check the number of aircraft delivered or in use by US
airlines and you will find a huge increase in the use of Regional Jets.
Remember, Boeing does not manufacture a RJ (neither does Airbus). The
big RJ producers are Bombardier (Canadair RJ) and Embracer. Also, you
can't look at the aircraft 'owned' by the major airlines because most of
the RJs are flown by the "Commuter" airlines (ASA, Comair, American
Eagle, etc.)
Go to the major airport hubs where the long queues form for takeoff and
look at aircraft types... about half will be RJs these days. (Because
they fly shorter routes and turn around faster, they make more take-offs
and landings than larger, 'standard' jets, compounding the problem.)
Mike

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com