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.

Jay,

Opinions?


I know there are things I don't know enough about to have one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sep 12, 9:44 am, 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.

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.

Great place for touch and gos. http://pad39a.com/gene/flypix18.html
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Just to throw some fuel on the fi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20724859

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

...to fix the airlines?

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).

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.

Fix the airlines? Not without building lots more hubs, perhaps connected by
rail. Who's going to pay for that, let alone get it past the NIMBYs?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

In a previous article, Jay Honeck said:
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

Exactly. Smaller planes use more fuel per passenger, plus more of the
other overhead costs per passenger. If you want to keep the cost per
passenger down, which I assume they do, then the airlines need to start
flying fewer trips per day on bigger airplanes.

I like the idea somebody else in this thread had of encouraging that
behaviour by setting landing fees based on how many operations per hour
happen that hour. Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the starting bid
"free". Airlines looking for lower costs will change their schedules to
avoid the hours where slots are going for lots of money, and people
willing to pay a premium can still get exactly the arrival time they want.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"I look forward to killing you soon!" - Ninja, http://www.askaninja.com/

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?