On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

By flying different paths than now.


That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft. I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?


Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.


Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

Sure. Regulation does wonder. Deregulation did nothing for the
industry. Brilliant once again.


They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

You can babble this all you want. It hardly makes it true. And it's
not.