Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 17, 12:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

We're certainly getting hit a lot lately with reporting like this.

There was a different kind of article here in NJ a few months back. A
factory owner was angry because an air ambulance had moved to his
town's small airport, and sometimes the 'copters disturbed him. He
was trying hard to get rid of the whole airport, when one of his
employees fell into a vat of molten lead and was severely burned.
Well, well, well. Luckily the local base allowed the victim to be
airlifted to a burn hospital in time to save his life. Otherwise, no
way. The factory owner dropped his efforts at closing the airport.

Kev

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

--
William Black


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

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

It's the same strategy as detailed in the Brabazon report conclusions.
Small fields all over the place, small fast aircraft linking them. It was
used by the British aircraft industry as a blueprint, and they promptly
built the Bristol Brabazon and the DeHaviland Comet...

It's a strategy that requires lots of rich people who want to fly short
distances.

The Boeing 707 killed that idea. People wanted big cheap aircraft that took
them quickly to somewhere within about five hundred miles of where they were
going, after that they can use local transport, flying or not...

The Airbus A320 series is a hard act to beat for a short haul 200+ seater
'local bus service' type aircraft. What advantage does the 787 have over
it?

Well, apart from having 'not made in the USA' stamped on it

--
William Black


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

hummingbird wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.
Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.
Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

I wouldn't expect the airports mentioned in the article to see overseas
travel anytime soon. I'm not sure how many of them even have commercial
service. And if they do attract low-cost domestic carriers, what do
those airlines fly? Frontier has Airbus A318s and 319s. Jet Blue?
Airbus, and Embraer. Southwest flies Boeing 737s, but I don't think the
subsidies are aimed at them in particular.

The B787 is likely to let airports like Denver add routes. And as
traffic grows, airlines will put on bigger jets. For some airlines,
that will mean a B747, and for others, an A340. This rising tide lifts
all boats.

Louis

On Apr 17, 6:45 am, hummingbird wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:





"hummingbird" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho

Never blame on cunning, that which can be explained by stupidity.
The US fed govt. has been "feeding" money to smaller local
governments in all manner for decades. We call it "pork" over here.
Airports are just one of many ways. In ye olde days LBJ refered to
it as "revenue sharing". These days the mother of all methods is
through HSA. There is money to "secure" smaller airports. This
can be used to install new monitoring and communciation equipment,
erect fences with "security" gates, build new "secure" hangers, etc.
Frequently these are new facilities the local community had been
trying to build for years anyway. Or regular maintance that needed
doing anyway. But now the feds are there to help!

Trust me, when the feds want to "help" Boeing, they pay the money
directly to Boeing.

(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Mxsmanic) wrote in
:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

Do the fees paid by the commercial airlines completely cover the
costs of building and operating airports and the air traffic control
system?

If not, then passengers are also subsidizing commercial aviation.

For the most part, that is called fares.