FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

Neil Gould writes:

Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies, from
Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that, given a
reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time and hassle of
using hubs that are 180° away from where they ultimately want to go.

Which means what? I don't see the connection.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies,
from Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that,
given a reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time
and hassle of using hubs that are 180° away from where they
ultimately want to go.

Which means what? I don't see the connection.

Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies are
introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and therefore
become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in that curve, the
idea is based on the already successful corporate jet enterprises (that
also use GA airports). So, it directly answers your original question
about the viability of GA.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies are
introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and therefore
become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in that curve, the
idea is based on the already successful corporate jet enterprises (that
also use GA airports). So, it directly answers your original question
about the viability of GA.

A great deal of additional infrastructure would be required at many GA
airports in order to make them suitable for ordinary commercial
airline services, irrespective of the type of planes used. Just
flying planes that can accept a shorter runway would only cover the
tip of the iceberg.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies
are introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and
therefore become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in
that curve, the idea is based on the already successful corporate
jet enterprises (that also use GA airports). So, it directly answers
your original question about the viability of GA.

A great deal of additional infrastructure would be required at many GA
airports in order to make them suitable for ordinary commercial
airline services, irrespective of the type of planes used. Just
flying planes that can accept a shorter runway would only cover the
tip of the iceberg.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135. It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From the fact that this is how it works now.

The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135.

That's not quite the same as an American Airlines, though. The market
is different, the volumes are smaller, etc.

It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

So it's not clear that a change would be for the better.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:42:29 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Neil Gould writes:

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From the fact that this is how it works now.

The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135.

That's not quite the same as an American Airlines, though. The market
is different, the volumes are smaller, etc.

It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

So it's not clear that a change would be for the better.

Have you seen how many times 'mxsmanic' is posting into this group?
His only knowlwdge is Flight Sim!!!!