![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:29:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html "He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology that's been 10 years in the making. "'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are saying no,' Castelveter said." I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths. 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. "She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from 1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces noise for 600,000 people.'" I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce delays. That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths. I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better. From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur (or at least that's their ultimate origin). Part of the problem but certainly not all. And seasonal as well, being worse in summer and less in the off months. Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more resources. 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? Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive and go up? I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and inefficient. They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical heights. "The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate aviation. "The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent of the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think it's not just airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he said. Is this number correct? Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Restoration | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel aid | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 7th 06 12:25 PM |
Travel Supplements | Jetnw | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 15th 04 07:50 AM |