On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:52:50 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:59 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity. That
would do a lot alright.

This issue is "where's the bottleneck". If it really is in control over
airspace, hiring more controllers is probably not a bad idea.

However, we all know that that's not the most critical issue at all
despite the claims of some otherwise. The real issue - runway count
combined with the hub/spoke model - gets no benefit from additional
controllers.

I do have one odd data point, however. I sat on the ramp in a small
airliner at EWR recently, waiting for weather to improve between EWR and
my destination in Ohio (I forget which airport). I was watching the
weather from my "phone". If I'd an airliner's speed and range, I'd have
taken off in a different direction (to the north would have been my
choice). Make a left around Albany, and the entire route would have been
weather-clear.

[Even w/o the range, I could have added a stop en route for fuel.]

Instead of that, though, we waited until the cells (which were over an
hour away when the wait started) passed EWR eastbound. Then we departed.

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

You ignoring all the other traffic that the airport was handling at
the same time which most likely made your flight do what it did. You
can't just do as you did and assume that space is available for your
aircraft. That's why they have controllers in the first place.