Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"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.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

So, do the fees collected by the commercial airlines through their
fares and then paid to various agencies completely cover the costs of
building and operating airports and the air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Apr 17, 7:20 am, "William Black"
wrote:

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?


Apples and oranges. The A320 is a single-aisle transport whereas the
787 is a widebody. Higher capacity and longer range. 787 isn't meant
for short segments. 737 is a much better comparison as it competes
directly with the A320 series (and quite well too, judging by Boeing's
backlog)

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"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.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees and leases.

(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Sancho Panza) wrote in
:


"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.

How do fares cover the cost of building and operating the airports
and air traffic control system other than through fees that are
included in those fares?

Significants parts of the fares go to expenses like landing fees
and leases.

And do those "significant parts" cover the cost of building and
operating the airports and air traffic control system?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

hummingbird writes:

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.

Whatever the reason, I don't see why it's so objectionable.

The government spends untold billions to build and maintain a national highway
system and endless motor vehicle infrastructure around the country, and nobody
objects to that, even though almost all of this is designed to serve private
drivers driving their own cars. They _could_ use public transportation
instead (just a people use commercial airlines to fly). Perhaps people who
drive their own cars instead of taking the bus should be called "hobby
drivers," if GA pilots are "hobby pilots."

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

hummingbird writes:

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.

Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments. You don't see that
kind of incest in the U.S., which is one reason why the U.S. has a healthier
economy.

Your speculation above sounds like a rather farfetched conspiracy theory.
Building an entire infrastructure to please a single private company? I don't
think so. My guess is that the two notions are completely independent.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by itself,
and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

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

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be operated
without government interference.

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

"William Black" wrote ...


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...

While the Comet deserves its brief entry in the avaiation history books, the
poor Brabazon was an absolute non-starter, no matter the conditions. It
barely matched the performance and load capacity of several series of a/c
already in service.

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

The 787 is large a/c designed for long stages, entirely unsuitable for
service into small airports in the US, almost all of which share the common
bond of too little population density to fill the seats in 200-250 pax a/c.
Even the short 737s are too "big" for most of them (other than regional
centers of population like Lubbock or the two airports in the Rio Grande
Valley).

A. The federal government currently vastly subsidizes (along with financial
support by the "legacy" airlines) commuter service into dozens of small
airports across the land (of which in the US there are so many as to
actually make Great Britain look virtually airportless - check a chart
someday, Willum). The ones served by these small and/or subsidiary air
carriers exist in a world foreign to England, vast expanses of thinly
populated territory. Where I live, Waco, 120,000 folks plus 80K or so in
the suburbs, there are 5 working airports plus a couple of paved private
strips within 15 minutes driving. Waco is served by two commuter lines,
AmEagle and CO, with 40 seat a/c (Saab 340s), 110 miles to DFW, 160 to IAH,
110 to AUS. While able to fill a dozen flights (in that size a/c) a day,
the odds are better than good, that AB320s or B-737s would come and go half
empty.

One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
"executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

Because of the need for full facilities, few "big" airlines serve small
airports, with WN's service to West Islip, LI, NY being an exception. On
the other hand, there are any number of US airports - AUS comes to mind -
currently unserved by international flights that could certainly support
"occasional" (up to 3-4 a week) direct international service to Europe and
Mexico. The problem, money, establishing and paying for port of entry
status and immigration facilities in only sporadic use. After all, MCO and
Sanford handle European skeds and charters, serving as vacation destinations
alone.

In my case, I regularly pay the extra tariff, usually modest (but not by
European cheap airline standards) to fly to DFW to connect. Counting
security, it's not much quicker to fly, but parking here is free and close
to the terminal. Were there a comfortable ground shuttle, something more
than a van not operating late at night, I might use it, but US antitrust
laws prevent the airlines from operating shuttles, arranging for them or
even selling tickets to ride.

"TUSIAVBAHDP" The US is a very big and highly diverse place." With a state
or two larger than the Scuttled H'aisles, on close examination the US better
resembles the vast reaches of Russia than the close quarters in which you
live. For all the loud complaints regarding "hub and spoke" operations,
they are probably the most efficient and effective business model for
traditional airline service here, as larger population "centers" develop
across the country (and some traditional ones decline). WN's an exception,
having chosen a route and grabbed a toehold in a new market based on that
route being self-supporting, then expanding to "fit" only predictable
economically productive expansion. Whether Jet Blue or similar new arrivals
can make that model work still remains unclear. The capital requirements
have grown so , since WN came along more than 30 years ago.

TMO

One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
"executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
already).

I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Paul kgyy writes:

There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
already).

If all non-commercial flights were forbidden, you wouldn't need any other
airport and LAX would not be any more crowded.

I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Well, nowadays they are more likely to move the jobs to the Third World.

There are lots of people flying jets. Some of them help society, some of them
hurt. It's difficult to generalize.

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

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:20:12 GMT, "William Black"
wrote in
:

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...

NASA's and FAA's vision of the future for air travel, Small
Aviation Transportation System (SATS), is based on small airport
infrastructure as an alternative to short-range automotive trips
for both private and business transportation needs.

That's why Robert Poole's duplicitous assertion about it being
inappropriate for FAA to fund improvements at smaller, non airline,
airports is a deliberate, sensationalized, sound-bite attempt to
mislead the lay public. That arrogant, propaganda spewing, jerk needs
to be exposed for the fraud he and his Reason Foundation are.
http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/


http://www.reason.org/poole.shtml
Poole was among the first to propose the commercialization of the U.S.
air traffic control system, and his work in this field has helped
shape proposals for a U.S. air traffic control corporation. A version
of his corporation concept was implemented in Canada in 1996 and was
more recently endorsed by several former top FAA administrators.

Poole's studies also launched a national debate on airport
privatization in the United States. He advised both the FAA and local
officials during the 1989-90 controversy over the proposed
privatization of Albany (NY) Airport. His policy research on this
issue helped inspire Congress' 1996 enactment of the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program and the privatization of Indianapolis'
airport management under Mayor Steve Goldsmith.