What's it gonna take?

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.

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
:

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)

"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)

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

"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

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.

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.

"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.