Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

"William Black" wrote ...


It's the same strategy as detailed in the Brabazon report conclusions.
Small fields all over the place, small fast aircraft linking them. It was
used by the British aircraft industry as a blueprint, and they promptly
built the Bristol Brabazon and the DeHaviland Comet...

While the Comet deserves its brief entry in the avaiation history books, the
poor Brabazon was an absolute non-starter, no matter the conditions. It
barely matched the performance and load capacity of several series of a/c
already in service.

The Airbus A320 series is a hard act to beat for a short haul 200+ seater
'local bus service' type aircraft. What advantage does the 787 have over
it?

Well, apart from having 'not made in the USA' stamped on it

The 787 is large a/c designed for long stages, entirely unsuitable for
service into small airports in the US, almost all of which share the common
bond of too little population density to fill the seats in 200-250 pax a/c.
Even the short 737s are too "big" for most of them (other than regional
centers of population like Lubbock or the two airports in the Rio Grande
Valley).

A. The federal government currently vastly subsidizes (along with financial
support by the "legacy" airlines) commuter service into dozens of small
airports across the land (of which in the US there are so many as to
actually make Great Britain look virtually airportless - check a chart
someday, Willum). The ones served by these small and/or subsidiary air
carriers exist in a world foreign to England, vast expanses of thinly
populated territory. Where I live, Waco, 120,000 folks plus 80K or so in
the suburbs, there are 5 working airports plus a couple of paved private
strips within 15 minutes driving. Waco is served by two commuter lines,
AmEagle and CO, with 40 seat a/c (Saab 340s), 110 miles to DFW, 160 to IAH,
110 to AUS. While able to fill a dozen flights (in that size a/c) a day,
the odds are better than good, that AB320s or B-737s would come and go half
empty.

One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
"executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

Because of the need for full facilities, few "big" airlines serve small
airports, with WN's service to West Islip, LI, NY being an exception. On
the other hand, there are any number of US airports - AUS comes to mind -
currently unserved by international flights that could certainly support
"occasional" (up to 3-4 a week) direct international service to Europe and
Mexico. The problem, money, establishing and paying for port of entry
status and immigration facilities in only sporadic use. After all, MCO and
Sanford handle European skeds and charters, serving as vacation destinations
alone.

In my case, I regularly pay the extra tariff, usually modest (but not by
European cheap airline standards) to fly to DFW to connect. Counting
security, it's not much quicker to fly, but parking here is free and close
to the terminal. Were there a comfortable ground shuttle, something more
than a van not operating late at night, I might use it, but US antitrust
laws prevent the airlines from operating shuttles, arranging for them or
even selling tickets to ride.

"TUSIAVBAHDP" The US is a very big and highly diverse place." With a state
or two larger than the Scuttled H'aisles, on close examination the US better
resembles the vast reaches of Russia than the close quarters in which you
live. For all the loud complaints regarding "hub and spoke" operations,
they are probably the most efficient and effective business model for
traditional airline service here, as larger population "centers" develop
across the country (and some traditional ones decline). WN's an exception,
having chosen a route and grabbed a toehold in a new market based on that
route being self-supporting, then expanding to "fit" only predictable
economically productive expansion. Whether Jet Blue or similar new arrivals
can make that model work still remains unclear. The capital requirements
have grown so , since WN came along more than 30 years ago.

TMO

One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
"executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
already).

I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Paul kgyy writes:

There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
already).

If all non-commercial flights were forbidden, you wouldn't need any other
airport and LAX would not be any more crowded.

I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

Well, nowadays they are more likely to move the jobs to the Third World.

There are lots of people flying jets. Some of them help society, some of them
hurt. It's difficult to generalize.

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

On 17 Apr 2007 08:09:29 -0700 Paul kgyy wrote:

: One of the phenoms in the US large metro areas are airports completely
: devoted to general aviation, and serving large numbers of corporate and
: "executive charter) a/c, many of them small jets. That's where a big chunk
: of federal subsidy goes, of little benefit to the traveling public.

:There's a substantial benefit to the traveling public. If every GA
:flight that landed within 100 miles of LAX would start landing at LAX,
:you'd have gridlock at the airport and on the ground (as if they don't
:already).

I would bet that the number of GA flights would be reduced since the LAX
landing fees are much higher.

Also, there are a few real airports within 100 miles.

:I get really tired of hearing people beat up on the corporate jet
:set. These are people who create jobs for the rest of us.

As long as they pay their true cost.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.