What's it gonna take?

"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?

"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.

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. :-(

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.?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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)
____________________

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.