What's it gonna take?

"AustinMN" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 12, 11:53 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message

The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to correct
the
situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to support HSR would
make even a congressman blanch.

Congresscritters NEVER blanch when it comes to spending other peoples
money.

I have no doubt that they have unofficial "committees" that just sit
around trying to think up ways to get more of it.


And a whole slew of official ones, too. For instance, the Senate Finance
Committee, as well as whole slew of sub-committees.

And then there's the inevitable cost-overruns as politically favored types
get sugar-daddy contracts. Denver's DIA airport is a great example of cost
overruns and ineptitude. Not to mention the politically favored developers
that got to buy up the land from the old Stapleton airport for really cheap,
after the taxpayers paid for most of the cleanup.

I don't recall the numbers, but Boston's system is a good example of MT
insanity. So are Denver's, Phoenix's and Portland's. From what I can tell,
Portland's was supposed to cost something like $300 million and carry 25% of
traffic (promises...promises), and is now approaching $5 BILLION and
carrying less than 8%. Denver's and Phoenix's are likely to be even worse.

So, imagine that on a NATIONAL scale. Say, a couple $TRILLION?

Just my NSHO.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Morgans" wrote:

Nope, fixing the airlines is what we are stuck with.

Unfortunately, about any fix is going to involve spreading out the loads to
off peak times, which will mean more waiting for the consumer.

People want what is (currently) impossible: cheap, reliable air transportation
that departs and arrives *reliably* on tight schedules.

High speed rail might have provided that; it is hard to see how mass air
transit ever will.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

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.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The breakeven point is probably closer to 500.

Not for high-speed trains. I'd say it's actually a bit more than 1000 km now.

Ahhh jeez guys, the solution is so simple... Reinstitute the CAA with
all their original powers to regulate the airlines and presto-chango:
1 Ticket fees will triple or quadruple
2 Stu's will be wearing semi military uniforms with pert little hats
and they will be young, single, and nubile
3 The number of daily flights will be regulated by law
4 The airline airports will become quiet and dusty places inbetween
the 6 daily flights allowed
5 Leave it to Beaver will begin a new series
6 The Contrail Conspiracists will all have to move in with the TWA800
group
7. Nuculer families will once again be a working father and a
homemaker mom
8 Gas will be under a dollar a gallon

I could go on and on, but I don't want to dazzle you too much... Just
think it through...

denny

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The breakeven point is probably closer to 500.

Not for high-speed trains. I'd say it's actually a bit more than 1000
km now.

YMMV


I can assure you, his milage always varies.

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?

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Eclipse is on the financial bubble. They need to sell around 500-600
planes a year to even begin to recoup their costs, and they have had a lot
of setbacks like the engines and avionics. If the engine and avionics
encounter difficulties, then the whole production process comes to a
grinding halt, with no cash inflow. Unless they get a lot more venture
capital (or is it capitol), they won't be around for long. Same goes for
all of the other VLJ's, except possibly Cirrus or Cessna.

Cessna's Mustang is not, technically, a VLJ, and Cirrus' VLJ is going to be
a lot further out than Eclipse. Eclipse has solved it's engine problems and
it's avionics solution is well on it's way to being solved. They've
delieverd 11 so far, and have had their first revenue flight.

Eclipse has over 2000 orders booked and just got about 300 more from some
group in Eastern Europe.

Then, watch for Honda to let the dust settle and have them introduce their
own jet- they obviously can bankroll the whole process from start to
finish. If it has the same reliability, fit, and finish of an Acura, it
will be a winner, despite a more realistic and higher price point. I plan
on buying a used TBM at that point, since their value will likely drop
tremendously when this happens.

Honda's VLJ is nice, but at nearly $4M, it's nearly the same price as a CJ1.
An Eclipse 500 goes, right now, for about $1.8M with most options, and about
$1.9M for a Part 135 capable airplane.

Eclipse also has a "By the hour" package that will, ostensibly, result in an
per hour operating cost of around $415/hour, assuming Jet-A stays at about
$4.25 a gallon. Of course, at 55-75 GPH, if fuel prices DO climb, Eclipse
will have even more of an advantage over its competitors.

My take is that the VLJ market is going to replace the piston twins, and
possibly many turboprops. Cirrus will get the short-haul air taxi market and
Eclipse will get the longer hauls and those when they need to top terrain
and weather.

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