CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

John Kulp wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote

Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
stealing what money is already being paid for?
So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?
--
Jim in NC



GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
off!! GPS is useless without controllers

The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
mean **** in the big picture.

John Kulp wrote:


So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?
--
Jim in NC




GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.


GPS does neither.

"John Kulp" wrote

GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
factor for separation, isn't it?
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:57:20 -0400, JerryLewis
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote

Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
stealing what money is already being paid for?
So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?
--
Jim in NC



GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
off!! GPS is useless without controllers

The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
mean **** in the big picture.

Just like your stupid racist rants. Don't mean ****. In any picture.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:27:34 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote

GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.

If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
factor for separation, isn't it?

Well, wake turbulence is certainly a factor, particularly for the A380
which may slow down things even further. Which raises the question as
to whether it should be penalized more than others if they start to
use penalties.

John Kulp wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:57:20 -0400, JerryLewis
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:21:51 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote

Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
stealing what money is already being paid for?
So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?
--
Jim in NC


GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.
Not if the FAA ****es off all the controllers and runs them
off!! GPS is useless without controllers

The FAA is ****ing off all their controllers so GPS don't
mean **** in the big picture.

Just like your stupid racist rants. Don't mean ****. In any picture.

Your opinion about me being "racist" is just like an
asshole. Everyone has one at it stinks. Including yours.

John Kulp wrote:


Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't you paying
enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the politicos are
stealing what money is already being paid for?

What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?

I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this forum a
month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper off peak and more
expensive on-peak. That's how economics should work. Things should cost more
when they are in higher demand and less when they are in lower demand.

John Kulp wrote:


Well, wake turbulence is certainly a factor, particularly for the A380
which may slow down things even further. Which raises the question as
to whether it should be penalized more than others if they start to
use penalties.

If it takes up more of a scarce asset then of course it should pay more.

Morgans wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote

GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more.


If they are heavies, the separation for wake turbulence is what the limiting
factor for separation, isn't it?

You need up to six miles behind a heavy. Your spamcan needs four miles
behind a large, such as a B737. To say GPS increases available capacity
25% is ludicrous.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system
would handle about 25% more flights on the same runways. Aren't
you paying enough all ready for flights? Want to pay more when the
politicos are stealing what money is already being paid for?


What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?

I didn't say anything about paying more. What I suggested in this
forum a month or so ago was the same net cost just make it cheaper
off peak and more expensive on-peak. That's how economics should
work. Things should cost more when they are in higher demand and
less when they are in lower demand.

Then again it should also be that an increased use of resources should
cost more. Thus 747s should cost more than 737s and 380s more than
737s. The only serious issue should be how much more.

The difference in resource use between a 737 and a 747 both wanting to land
around the same time is insignificant as compared to the difference in use
of resources between and aircraft landing at 8:00 am and one at 2:00am.