What's it gonna take?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The USA isn't France. In 2005 the average airline passenger trip length was
866 miles. That's around 1393.7 km. So our average trip length is longer
than your faster cheaper target.

The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to take the
plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so about the only time
you spend on a train trip is time actually riding on the train. Airplanes, on
the other hand, have a built-in delay of two hours or so at both ends of the
trip, irrespective of time in the air. So a train trip that requires four
hours or less always wins over a plane trip, no matter what the distance
involved.

In general, I find that the threshold seems to be around 1000 km, which is a
bit under four hours at typical high-speed-rail speeds. If you run the trains
faster, this threshold rises; if you run them slower (for example at U.S.
speeds), it shrinks until it's no longer worth discussion.

A high-speed-train could connect Los Angeles and San Diego in about 40
minutes. This beats the 4 hours of plane travel by a handsome margin. It
doesn't matter whether it's the U.S. or Europe, the numbers work the same way.
The U.S. resists such ideas for reasons unconnected with the actual efficiency
and travel time.

The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to take the
plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so about the only time
you spend on a train trip is time actually riding on the train. Airplanes, on
the other hand, have a built-in delay of two hours or so at both ends of the
trip, irrespective of time in the air.

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
aircraft.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
service.

Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
"crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
status quo.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to
take the plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so
about the only time you spend on a train trip is time actually
riding on the train. Airplanes, on the other hand, have a built-in
delay of two hours or so at both ends of the trip, irrespective of
time in the air.

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
aircraft.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
service.

Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
"crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
status quo.

Iowa city needs to get its act together and get on the Essential Air Service
gravy boat.

My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
different than charter flights have been for years?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
different than charter flights have been for years?

Faster than most currently available air-taxi aircraft and probably much
more expensive!

Matt

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
The principle revolves around the enormous extra time required to
take the plane. Trains go from city center to city center, and so
about the only time you spend on a train trip is time actually
riding on the train. Airplanes, on the other hand, have a built-in
delay of two hours or so at both ends of the trip, irrespective of
time in the air.

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

This is also the main idea behind the "new" "Air Taxi Service", which
is really nothing more than providing the same service our parents and
grand-parents enjoyed for decades, using smaller, more efficient
aircraft.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

When the postal service was forced by Congress to get more efficient
in 1972 (by then, we'd ****ed all of our wealth away on Viet Nam and
the Great Society), the airlines could no long justify flying their
big, fuel-inefficient, union-operated Martin 404s into places like
Iowa City -- and most of the country was left without decent airline
service.

Vern Raburn's EclipseJet was supposed to be the answer to this
problem. So far, I've seen little progress along those lines -- but
the confluence of "hub" airport overcrowding along with an FAA in
"crisis" seems to be shoving the system in a direction away from the
status quo.

Iowa city needs to get its act together and get on the Essential Air
Service gravy boat.

My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it any
different than charter flights have been for years?

I've been asking myself this, and there are a couple of things that
could help.

1. The airport security crap has gotten so bad and so slow, that there
are a lot more people out there willing to spend some extra bucks on
Charters or Fractional ownership. While small, these aircraft are much nicer
than a business class seat 64F.

2. As someone mentioned earlier, airlines have a built in delay at both
ends, and a hub in the middle. Point to Point, using all of those unused, no
slot, under 7000' airports can give you one hell of an advantage.

3. The aircraft are smaller, more efficient, and burn way less fuel than
the old Lear.

4. They will, however, have almost the same block time as the Lear, and
quicker than an airline.

5. With enough of them, left around the country from their last trip,
response time to smalltown, anywhere could still be fairly good. If crews
are left at the last destination until called, the only deadhead is the last
trip of your 2 week shift.

6. There are a lot of very experienced 60+ year old airline captains in
excellent health running around out there.

Does all of this add up to a workable economic model? I hope so.

Al G

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
My question about the new air-taxi service using the VLJs is how is it
any different than charter flights have been for years?

I've been asking myself this, and there are a couple of things that
could help.

1. The airport security crap has gotten so bad and so slow, that there
are a lot more people out there willing to spend some extra bucks on
Charters or Fractional ownership. While small, these aircraft are much
nicer than a business class seat 64F.

2. As someone mentioned earlier, airlines have a built in delay at both
ends, and a hub in the middle. Point to Point, using all of those unused,
no slot, under 7000' airports can give you one hell of an advantage.

3. The aircraft are smaller, more efficient, and burn way less fuel
than the old Lear.

4. They will, however, have almost the same block time as the Lear, and
quicker than an airline.

5. With enough of them, left around the country from their last trip,
response time to smalltown, anywhere could still be fairly good. If crews
are left at the last destination until called, the only deadhead is the
last trip of your 2 week shift.

6. There are a lot of very experienced 60+ year old airline captains in
excellent health running around out there.

Does all of this add up to a workable economic model? I hope so.

Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more passengers?
Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a taxicab?

Matt Barrow wrote:

Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
taxicab?

They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay for the
empty seats any way.

That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose money. It seems like
the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by airlines.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Question: Doesn't a charter require something like five or more
passengers? Like Chartering a Greyhound bus as compared to hiring a
taxicab?

They don't require all the seats be filled but you are going to pay for
the empty seats any way.

That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they loose money. It seems
like the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by
airlines.

And that may be just the ticket. Riding an airline isn't as much fun as
it was when I was a kid. VLJ's convenience could be just short of owning
your own, at a cost of only 2-3 times an airline fare. Like you said, it
depends alot on whether you are traveling alone. I had to fly my family from
Roseburg, Or to Grand Junction, Co, on short notice, for my Dad's funeral.
It was not quick, not easy, and not cheap,( 2-3amu's). A VLJ would have been
my choice.

Al G

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

That is where I'm concerned about the VLJ model. Let's say I need to fly
from Little Rock AR to Nashville TN. If they are only charging me for one
seat I either wait for the plane to fill or they (___loose___?) money. It
seems like the routes where it might work for VLJ are already served by
airlines.

If there is any of that "loose" money floating around in the VLJ's, I'll
take some! VBG

Sorry Gig, but I had to do that! I can't believe you let "that one" slip by
your proof reading! ;-))

That is a concern for me, too. I believe it may be rough for a while, to
keep (or get) the seats full.

I think they are counting on the first someone needing to go, and enough
others wanting to go (in the same time frame) that are willing to pay the
premium price for the ride and filling some more of the seats.

I would think that there would be some premium included in the seat price
structure, if the first person needs to go right away, and not be willing to
be flexible in the departure time and destinations. (to help with filling
some more of the seats) If not, there may be tough times ahead, indeed.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck writes:

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

If commercial flights were as easy as flights in a private plane (and they
once were, although they aren't now), I'd still be finding excuses to fly from
place to place, as flying itself is fun. But flying is only the tip of the
iceberg nowadays, and the rest of the overhead completely erases the fun of
flight on a commercial airliner.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

Some commercial airline flights are the same way, depending on the route.