On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:19:34 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

The proposals need about 16 hours a year in time savings for the light
category jets to break even, of approx. 450 hours a year. That equates
to about 2.5 minutes of time savings per day. We could achieve this kind
of time saving by simply whipping the controllers vigorously until they
begin to issue clearances faster, or perhaps just at a faster vocal
clip.

Can you cite where in there you found this type of math; I've missed it.
I'm esp. curious whether the delays in question really are the result of
ATC throughput or if they're runway throughput.

[...]
What kinds of contingencies are
planned when corporate traffic drops to practically nothing, and the
airlines are sitting fat and happy on their tax-less fuel?

They can't plan for that. It would show the folly/dishonesty of charging
GA the "cost of services provided". The costs would remain fixed, or
perhaps drop trivially w/o GA, while the airlines - with their new tax
breaks some Senators are trying to grant - kept the system in high use.

It would be useful, though, to show what it would take to reduce ATC
service costs. For example, how low would traffic have to drop before
(for example) NY TRACON would be able to reduce staff by merging sectors?

Admittedly, this could fall out to either side of the argument. For
example, around KCDW I rarely hear KEWR traffic (that I can recall); it's
usually just KTEB, KMMU, and the smaller fields. If GA disappeared, could
a few sectors be merged and seats be removed?

I'm not sure of my recollection, mind you. I may simply recall the KTEB
and KMMU traffic because their approaches are close to KCDW so I tend to
pay more attention to those flights on the frequency. I'd not really know
the source of a departure.

Immediately south of KCDW, come to think on it, I know I've been mixed in
with KEWR departures. So that seat/sector would remain unchanged.

I'll pay more attention next time I'm up. But this is the sort of study
that *someone* should do.


This proposal would seem to advocate throwing wads of cash at a problem
that doesn't yet exist, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible
for an individual or entity to own or operate a private aircraft.

I continue to wonder if this isn't someone's goal. After all, all those
corporate flights are seats not sold by the airlines. I've difficulty
taking this seriously, though, as the number of GA seats just isn't
significant compared to the cattle cars currently run by the airlines.

Heh Perhaps this is not caused by the airlines, but by the telecoms
companies. Each GA flight is a teleconference not had laugh.

- Andrew