What's it gonna take?

....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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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)
____________________

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 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...

"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)

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.