Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

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

On Apr 17, 12:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

We're certainly getting hit a lot lately with reporting like this.

There was a different kind of article here in NJ a few months back. A
factory owner was angry because an air ambulance had moved to his
town's small airport, and sometimes the 'copters disturbed him. He
was trying hard to get rid of the whole airport, when one of his
employees fell into a vat of molten lead and was severely burned.
Well, well, well. Luckily the local base allowed the victim to be
airlifted to a burn hospital in time to save his life. Otherwise, no
way. The factory owner dropped his efforts at closing the airport.

Kev

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:48:18 -0700, Kev wrote:

The factory owner dropped his
efforts at closing the airport.

I was going to ask for a cite about this, as it's a story I'd missed (I'm
also in NJ) and I wanted to share it with others.

But it was pretty easy to find:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/189584-1.html
http://www.rotor.com/membership/rotorgram110.htm

Apparently, this didn't keep Joerger from fighting to keep the air
ambulance away. He owns a farm that he's wanted to subdivide according
to one article I've read...and it was just recently approved for
subdivision.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n... 506414&rfi=6

- Andrew

On Apr 17, 5:09 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
Apparently, this didn't keep Joerger from fighting to keep the air
ambulance away. He owns a farm that he's wanted to subdivide according
to one article I've read...and it was just recently approved for
subdivision.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...1918&PAG=461&d...

Thanks for looking that up. I had wondered what ever happened. Of
course he'd get approved... after all it's in New Jersey, the most
corrupt place in the nation when it comes to development. Next to
Daley's little Chicago fiefdom, that is ;-)

Kev

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

"hummingbird" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:30:42 GMT 'William Black'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:37:04 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

Perhaps one reason that money is being fed to the smaller airports is
to make them more attractive to commercial airlines to start up direct
point-to-point services instead of using big hubs and big jets. That
would be exactly in line with Boeing's strategy in the light of Airbus
A380 competition.

Certainly the very low cost airlines in Europe use smaller provincial
airports because the fees are much lower.

Are there very low cost airlines in the USA who use smaller fields?

Can't say for sure but I would think the US has plenty of low-cost
carriers like Ryanair et al using smaller airports.

Underlying my previous comment was the possibility that the US
fed govt are quietly feeding taxpayers money into smaller airports
to develop them, thereby helping Boeing who want to encourage
point-to-point flying in its 787 Dreamliner instead of airlines using
the A380 in/out of large hubs. I think it's called protectionism.

But of course we know that the US is all in favour of free trade
and doesn't indulge in such tactics. ho ho.

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...

It's a strategy that requires lots of rich people who want to fly short
distances.

The Boeing 707 killed that idea. People wanted big cheap aircraft that took
them quickly to somewhere within about five hundred miles of where they were
going, after that they can use local transport, flying or not...

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

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Apr 17, 7:20 am, "William Black"
wrote:

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?


Apples and oranges. The A320 is a single-aisle transport whereas the
787 is a widebody. Higher capacity and longer range. 787 isn't meant
for short segments. 737 is a much better comparison as it competes
directly with the A320 series (and quite well too, judging by Boeing's
backlog)

"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