Bush wants solutions for airline delays (auction off gates)

[underpants]

Source: MSNBC


updated 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush on Monday advocated a market-based approach for managing airline congestion and said the government would again clear military air space in the eastern United States to ease flight delays during holiday travel.


But regulators, according to aviation sources late on Monday, are coalescing around a plan that is to be announced on Wednesday by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and would, over the longer term, manage capacity and competition by auctioning some takeoff and landing rights.

In the shorter term, the sources said, the government is expected to impose hourly flight caps at JFK for the summer of 2008.

Auctioning slots, depending on how the plan is proposed, could require airlines to relinquish some rights. Regulators are likely, the sources said, to settle on a proposal to auction rights for new entrants to better manage demand and enhance competition.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22313192/

[Robbien]

1. Privatization. Yeah that's the ticket

Privatization always makes things better for the common man.

[underpants]

35. Look what privatization and deregulation has done for energy trading,

cell phones (your bills ARE lower, right?)
cable (your bills ARE lower, right?)
airlines


It's all WIN WIN baby!!!!

:sarcasm:

[napi21]

2. The fix is for Shrub and Congress to restore the $$ for airport expansion!

In another one of Shrub's gov't reductions, he removed the funding for necessary AP expansions! EVERYBIDY agrees that more prople are flying each year. Well, you can't fit any more planes on a single lane road (runway) and not have traffic backup! You HAVE to add additional roads! (runways)

[DLnyc]

12. Yes, that's what I always thought.

I was surprised to learn several years ago, though, that La Guardia Airport, the workhorse of the New York City airports, closes every evening around 11:00 pm!! Pernaps the crowding is partly a function of squeezing maximum profits out of the business, and resources are not as limited as they appear?

Also, of course, the ridiculously overdone security measures are adding a great deal of burden to the system.

[napi21]

22. Very few people want to fly at night. I remember when they had

flights called the "red eye" flight. I lived in Pgh then, and the cost of a flight to A was a LOT CHEAPER if you ttok the red eye. However, every time, that flight had less than 20 people on it! I used to get a pillow and a blanket, put both arm rests up and streach out across all 3 seats and snooze.

Unfortunately, airlines can't afford to fly planes with only 20 passengers on them!

[spinbaby]

39. No, the fix is rail

Many of the flights going through our airports are for flights of less than 500 miles. These are distances more efficiently served by rail.

[santamargarita]

3. Bullshit!

He's already privatized Flight Service - which is a mess - and last year he wanted to privatize the National Weather Service. In other words, make pilots pay to get the weather prior to flying.

As far as airspace: most military airspace is closed on weekends and holidays anyway. NEVER believe anything that comes out of a fascist pig's mouth!

[karlrschneider]

7. I even hear military flights having problems getting clearances to and into civ airports

these days...it's a goddamn nightmare. It's to the point where briefings, if and when you can get them, are useless...a lot of us just go no matter what the "forecast" is and pick up a clearance directly from ATC enroute. The FSS is useless nowadays.

[Parche]

4. Air

The main thing they need is ATC upgrades big time....
most ATC computers are so old that they breakdown regularly......
Streamline all landings and approaches using RNAV and GPS like Alaska Airlines is using...

:hi:

[karlrschneider]

6. Most airports have GPS apps published and more every day..and then there are

a lot of approaches shot using it without "clearance." I am not naming any names here. ;-)

[Parche]

8. airport

I am sure that airport didnt have GPS..................:P:P

Am flying PDX-JNU-ANC-DUT tonight in my 717.....want the right seat? :shrug: :hi:

[karlrschneider]

19. I better not, I don't know where DUT is

:D

[Parche]

24. Dutch Harbor!!

fun to land at, less then 4000 ft runway 12/30 :hi:

[karlrschneider]

31. Oh, well that's an easy one...just leave the gear up.

:rofl:

[Parche]

11. Ok

I may not be a pilot like you, but I do know alot about airlines/airplanes routes etc......
My interest in flight spans over 30years
Our old neighbor was the chief of the tower here, and used to take me up to visit, and when they
moved to DC, he was the head of the FAA Flight Data Center, where he gave me a tour, he was the
one that helped with the O'Hare airport approach and departure routes...he used to give me
alot of old manuals.
:hi:

[karlrschneider]

14. Back when I was just starting to fly, the Tulsa tower chief was in our flying club!

Some of us would frequently go to the tower* and Tom would let us play with the radar and "sit in" the controller chairs...which was terrifically cool since we were talking to them all the time from upstairs...shooting simulated ASR approaches and such. I guess they don't operate that loosely these days, not that I'd have the time anyhow. :D

* Back in those days, they would let us land on 17L and taxi right up to the tower and go inside!

[Captain Angry]

5. Perhaps some investment in high speed rail?

Coast to coast?

Nah, that would be silly. Why have options?

[DLnyc]

9. Also, encourage more bus routes

o Low capital requirements for terminals and busses
o Provides jobs for drivers and ticket personel
o A (reasonably full) bus is very efficient, in terms of passenger miles per gallon of fuel.

[Captain Angry]

10. I agree.

I live in a town of nearly 100,000 people, and it would take an hour or two by bus to get somewhere that I can drive to in 10 minutes.

Our routes are so badly thought out. This is one of those cases where I'd love to privatize the city bus system because it's a disaster.

The #1 employer (by a huge margin) in the area doesn't even have a bus stop.

[DLnyc]

17. Yes, I think some mix of private, competitive bus/jitney services plus

government involvement in setting up terminals and licensing can work quite well. In NYC, a large 'authority' built the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan, I believe, but numerous private bus companies run out of it. However, there is a tendency for large companies (specifically Greyhound) to buy up small routes and then raise the fares, I think. This helps explain the "Chinatown" bus line phenomena: Running out of Chinatown (fairly far from Port Authority), various independent bus companies have sprung up and charge a half to a third of what Greyhound was charging to places like Boston and DC (Greyhound has come down since, I believe). Oddly, these independents can use the city terminal in Boston, but not in NYC?

I would say private competition is great, as long as monopoly practices are effectively prevented, and as long as safe standards are maintained.

By the way, I have travelled around the US quite a bit by bus, and have found the system quite reliable and efficient. If only there were more busses running to more places!

[Captain Angry]

21. That would be so nice.

It is over an hour to the airport, and the "shuttle" can't be depended on. If there were a bus company that moved between here and there, I could get places for a whole lot less money with a lot more reliability.

[Th1onein]

13. Yeah, right. Sell EVERYTHING the American people have bought

and paid for with their hard earned tax money.

I hate that son of a bitch. He's pure shit.

[rasputin1952]

15. Oh for God's sake...one more thing this idiot can screw up...

just what the country needs.

Here's an idea george...why don't we "outsource" the executive branch; after all, apparently the office has been "auctioned off" already...:grr:

Here's another idea...get Fred Thompson to deal with the problem...he did really well in that Die Hard movie...:eyes:

[TommyO]

16. Bigger planes, fewer flights is the solution

Carriers have gone from larger planes to smaller regional jets while increasing the number of flights daily to keep the number of seats relatively stable. This results in ground congestion which is the primary cause of flight delays. The simple solution is to scrap regional jets and move to larger, more efficient, planes that have fewer daily departures.

[karlrschneider]

20. Bzzzt. Wrong answer, sorry.

It would be idiotic to sked widebody planes to 99% of domestic airports. Only a handful can 1) accomodate them and 2) generate traffic to fill them past the break-even point.

[TommyO]

23. Care to address where you get your info?

I'm not an expert on the situation, but what Patrick Smith, Ask The Pilot on salon.com has posted about the issue seems to back me up a bit.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/10/05/askthepilot248/

[TheWatcher]

27. He never does.

But he loves to shoot down others without providing anything other than hearsay.

Good Luck.

[karlrschneider]

30. I love you too.

:P

[karlrschneider]

29. What he says is reasonably factual but he fails to admit the necessity of the situation.

If you only look at major hubs (how many are there, really?...JFK, ORD, SEA, LAX, SFO, MIA, IAD, IAH, BOS, ATL, maybe DFW and one or 2 others) sure it makes sense but how do you get people from those places to Paducah, Wichita, Mobile, Austin, Colorado Springs and 500 other destinations that have no way economically or physically to accomodate a 74/75/76/77 Boeing or a 3xx Airbus? I really don't grasp what point is attempting to be made here...

[sutz12]

18. Hasn't the 'market' basically set the current conditions?

:shrug: We deregulated a few years ago. The genie's out of the bottle. How do we stuff it back in?

One thing the Repubs don't seem to get.....you can't force private corporations to do things without government coercion of some kind. Markets (and corporations) use shortages to prop up prices. It's the same as in medical care. Unless you have a certain proportion of the potential clientele priced out of the market, the ones who can 'afford it' have no incentive to participate in the bidding war that ensues over limited resources. The 'invisible hand of the market' is basically a giant scoop that reaches down, collects the money and lifts it up to those running the crane.

[baldguy]

25. Right. Deregulation has been a failure.

Accidents, delays & congestion are up. Airline bankruptcies are up. Controller pressure is up. Customer satisfaction is down.

But some corporate execs are still making money, so nothing will change.

[TommyO]

26. Accidents are actually down, however you're right on target with everything else.

[underpants]

38. "the market" has been created that the airlines can't control

I just flew out and back to Vegas from Richmond for about $100--total

If you ask all the people around you on a plane what they paid for the flight you will usually get as many different answers as people that you ask. The airlines well the market has taken pricing completely out of the hands of the service provider. Just something to think about.

[NashVegas]

42. The Airlines Are Too Frightened to Be the Bad Cop and Raise Air-fares

So now, they'll let the government do it so we, the customers, can complain about the gov't.

I just took a peek at Southwest fares. There's a sale that could send me to visit my family in January for the same price I paid to visit a year ago.

It would work out just a little more money for the trip, by car, but the time differential would be 14 hours. You'd think we would be paying more for those hours saved, wouldn't you?

Meanwhile, it would cost $50 less to travel coast-to-coast than it did 20 years ago.

Everything else has gone up in price, but not airfare?

No wonder the airlines are always a breath away from bankruptcy.

[Doctor Cynic]

28. Oh man, I can't imagine what would happen

if Bush gets his hand on air travel infrastructure.

People would be camping out at airport terminals. :rofl:

[happyslug]

32. Do you want Solution TODAY or a Solution?

Basically what you can do TODAY is quite limited. What you can do within five years is quite limited. Given 5 or more years you have more options. Lets look at the limitations to any short term solution first (i.e. less than Five years).

1. Building new runways and terminals to ease Planes into and out of the Airport is difficult. You have to acquire land for the new landing lanes, this require moving people and business in almost any airport. In fact the Airport with the most spare land for expansion is Greater Pitt in Pittsburgh, but it is at least 6 hours away from O'Hara and Chicago and 12 hours away from JFK, La Guardia Airport (LGA) and New York City by car (and even longer by Train, almost two days to New York City). Greater Pitt has the room for expansion for it is built on abandoned Strip Mines purchased by Allegheny County in the late 1940s (Pittsburgh is in Center of Allegheny County). Great Pitt has the Room, terminals etc but is to far away from where most people what to go. As to other airports, most have had extensive build up around them (Do to as much as the roads to the Airport as the Airport itself) which means expansion of the Airport is expensive and time consuming. Thus expansion of most Airports is not viable on the Short term basis.

2. Train Service. Trains were in decline from about 1940 till 1970, where it bottomed out and Amtrak was formed to try to save Rail service. Amtrak did an excellent job saving Rail service, but in two different forms. First was in Short Haul among Close in cities (The North East Corridor). Amtrak broke even on this corridor and has tried to improve service in that Corridor since 1970, but being a National Rail Service Amtrak has had to divert money to other trains with Political support in Washington, even if no passenger support. This can NOT change within the Next Five years even if Congress should make the change. It will take Amtrak five years to further improve East Coast Rail service to help out the Airports on the East Coast, and at least five years to improve train service to help out non-East Coast airports. Amtrak just can NOT put more trains on the Rail-lines for it has few if any trains NOT being used.

3. Bus Service. Bus service greatest problem is the Roads. In urban areas these roads are tied up in vehicle traffic (Cars, Trucks and Buses) to a degree that Bus Service can NOT help in moving people from Airport to Airport (Or the cities those airports serve).

Now lets look at long term solutions:

1. Airports, while given five years you can build additional land for additional runways, the opposition from people near the Airports will be immense. In my opinion some improvement can be made. Moving any Air Force units out of the Airports (Freeing Space for Passenger service, but this can be done even on a short term basis) will free up some landing times, but sooner or later you have to accept the fact airports are as about as big as there are going to get. Bigger planes will help, but only on flights to other airports that can support such big planes. You have to get the Passengers to these main airports, one way will be using Smaller planes (As what is happening now) the other is getting those passengers to the main airports by means OTHER than plane.

2. Trains. Trains can provide the Connection from smaller cities to the large Airports. Ideally these trains will have to go directly to the Airport, but what I believe will occur will occur on the East Coast First. A fast Speed Train on its own Right of Way between Boston and Washington (along with local service via the existing Fright Rail lines), can feed the Airport. Ideally the number of Stops of the High Speed train be limited. i.e. Boston, New Haven, JFK, Penn Station, Trenton, Philadelphia (Through Philadelphia Airport may be preferred with a separate rail line to Downtown Philadelphia and Trenton), Baltimore, Dulles Airport, terminating in DC. The High Speed line should connect the Airports and connect with the present Passenger Service wherever possible to permit transfer of passengers (What I mean is Airport to Airport should be the route, downtowns if it is on the way, such as Downtown New York City on the way from JFK to Philadelphia, but if a downtown is NOT on the way, stay Airport to Airport for the High Speed Rail). Now a Law Speed rail must also be maintained. This is to feed the Airports AND the High Speed Rail. This should be on the Current rail line that goes downtown to downtown with a stop anytime it intersects the High Speed Rail. Together the two rail systems can work together to feed people into the Large Airport to fill up the 747s and similar large jets. I be tempted to extend it south to Atlanta and Orlando, through south of DC the population density drops making Rail difficult on a local basis.

A similar line should be built between DC and Chicago (and maybe Milwaukee). This route has several large cities and feed into the super large airports (DC to Pittsburgh is shorter than Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and would have been the preferred rail line except for the incompetence of the B&O in the mid 1800s which let the old Pennsylvania railroad beat it out. I will NOT go into details, but by the 1850s management should have accepted that rails should be 100% iron, as did the Pennsy, NOT iron Strips on Wood, as the B&O did in the mid-1800s. among other incompetencies).

Back to rail lines. The West Coast could have a high Speed rail from San Diego to Seattle, but this does NOT have the population of the state a line from Boston to DC goes through or the population a Pittsburgh to Chicago line goes through. Another route would be the New Orleans to Houston to Dallas route, another high population rail line. These are the "Idea" lines, high Population, high number of people traveling between them. These would be profitable and help the Airports by drawing people to them.

Now while the above would be ideal High Speed Lines, there are other lines where High Speed Lines would help, but only as additional service to feed into the above high population areas. In these areas I would use just Low Speed Rail, but rail that comes at least four times a day in each directions (if Rail lines drop below four trips per day, Passengers stop taking it for the rail service is no longer convenient. This is what killed the old Passenger trains, the railroads kept rail services to areas but slowly drop the number of trains till it was less than four, then the rail lines had to close the line for lack of Passengers. The more trains you have per day, the most people will take it, the magi number seems to be Four in each directions.

Such low speeds locals, should be maintained to feed into the High Speed Service I mentioned above. All of the above High Speed rails should have a Low Speed Local along its route, just to pick up passengers at stops that would slow down the High Speed rail to much. A Low Speed route from Boston to Chicago via Toronto and Detroit would be such a route. As the Train nears either end of its slow route it will feed into the High Speed Rail and Large Airports. Another route that would be needed is a Low Speed from Chicago to St Louis and New Orleans. It would connect O'Hara and DFW by feeding both Airports. Chicago to Birmingham to Atlanta will do the same except for Atlanta Airport and DFW. One last lien between Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville and then Birmingham will connect the Mid West High Speed with New Orleans High Speed. These low speed rail service will feed into the High Speed and into the Airports. These Low Speed will provide an alternative to getting to other locations in the US AND to the large airports, both will reduce the backlog at those large airports.

Further west then Ft Worth, the population density drops even further. Bus Service on existing roads may be the better alternatives in such rural areas. Even EAST of DFW buses can be used to get people to local and high Speed rail heads. Such bus service should be integrated into the System.

An alternative for the High Speed line would be Downtown to Downtown, but if that is adopted a high speed rail line to any airport near any city MUST be made. Eases the connections with the local rail, but an additional transfer for Airport users.

This does NOT have to be one system run by one organization like Amtrak, while that is my first choice, I am willing to accept alternatives such as the Local Rail Service be run by Fright Rail lines while the High Speed Rail System would be run by our different organization (i.e. one for each high Speed rail line). Even if operated by one organization you are looking as at least Four High Speed Rail Division (East Coast, Mid-West, Texas and West Coast), Four Low speed divisions on the areas AND at least four additional division on the connecting low speed rail (and I will NOT go into how many bus "divisions" would be needed).

If you look at the above you are looking at 5-10 years of development. It would solve the problem of to many planes wanted to use the same airports at the same time, but at a hugh investment. I believe it would be a good investment for people will also use the Rail lines in place of their Cars and lessen traffic, but the key to Frequency. The Trains must run at least four times a day each way. If the trains can NOT do that, the trains can NOT move people to and from the Large Airports and ease the overcrowding.

[underpants]

37. Wow really excellent post

:thumbsup::applause:

[happyslug]

41. High Speed rail can help, but it needs to be supported.

My first choice would be increase number of trains on the low Speed rail lines along with rail connection (Even if it is light rail, i.e. Streetcars) to each city's airport. This train MUST run at least 4 times a day (It may be better to run it as a LRV system, one driver one car but frequent service). Long Trains, like the ones operated by Amtrak, are NOT what is needed. To fill these trains the trains tend to run once a day (outside the Northeast Corridor). That is NOT frequent enough for people to use. The better solution would be Trains at least once every two hours (and preferably once a hour) to provide constant service (and more frequent service during "Rush" time periods.

I once did a Calculation that shows that a train leaving New York City during Rush hour hits Chicago (via DC) during its early AM period (And a Chicago train leaving at Rush hour hits New York City about the same time). The best way to run these low speed trains is for BOTH sets of trains to run, thus you have 24 hour Service (Through the AM trains will lose money do to lack of riders, but make it up when they become Rush hours trains at the end of their route, the same for Rush hour trains, they will make money during their rush hour period, but lose money as they approach the other city in the AM periods).

While I prefer Light Rail, do to Federal Law it is almost impossible to run Light Rail with Fright Traffic, thus some sort of Rail car must be used. If you have the volume to justify its own line, Light Rail is the way to go, but given the requirement that Passenger trains must meet certain Federal Specs (Which means a heavy vehicle) if they operate with Fright Trains, Light Rail may NOT be possible (And thus must use Rail-cars instead).

LRV's information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
http://www.lightrail.com/vendors.htm

More information on Rail-cars:

Wikipedia on Rail Cars, has a lot of references to various types, mostly European:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_car

Colorado Rail car:
http://www.coloradorailcar.com/

Bombardier Corp (Both Light Rail and Rail car):
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_0.jsp

Kawasaki Rail-cars:
http://www.kawasakirailcar.com/home.asp

[DavidMS]

43. I like alot of what you are saying.

There is nothing wrong with driving up the costs of air travel, it will reduce emissions and service will cost what it will and there will be fewer late departures if the system is designed right. Essentially, instead of auctioning slots once, have auctions 6-8 months in advance for every departure and use the money raised for ATC modernization. The result is that there will be fewer delayed flights and service quality will improve. Flights will cost more, particularity for more desirable ones. There is nothing wrong with driving up the price of a plane ticket as there are environmentally better alternatives.

Got a couple of thoughts on this:

1. On more rural routes, use rail cars to get the cost down and service levels up. One example is here: http://www.coloradorailcar.com/ a historical example is here http://rivertorail.mjcpl.org/index.php?id=56 .

2. I am with you on reducing airplane travel to long distances and pushing rail transport for shorter distance passenger service.

4. For High Speed rail, I am considering anything over about 125mph to be fast enough to be high speed. However having local and regional service at slower speeds will pay for itself as car travel is increasingly expensive, environmentally unfeasible and unpleasant (congestion is negative feedback to driving).

5. Unless subway, light rail and streetcar systems are built to feed intercity railway lines the success of these projects will be limited.

[happyslug]

44. 125 mph is High Speed if we are talking about "maximum Speed".

The biggest problem for rail was the need to slow down for each stop and speed up afterward. This constant starting and stopping slowed down train traffic (or any mass transit system). On short runs this is acceptable, but on longer runs these tend to slow down the system overall (For example taking the Pennsylvania Turnpike is 1/2 the time it takes to go by train between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia).

You will be surprised at your "Average Speed" when you are driving your car do to the number of times you have to stop for Red-lights and Stop Signs (Average speed for most drivers on most trips is about 25 mph, about the same as most trains). Can you do 70mph? Yes, do you do 70 mph? Yes. Do you do 70 mph for the WHOLE TRIP? NO. 70 mph for 55 minutes and 0 mph for 5 minutes adds up to LESS then 70 mph, do to the time spent waiting for a light to change. Worse, most roads with Lights tend to be 35 mph or slower, even if you take an Interstate to get to the road that takes you to the Mall or work.

My point is that a train that can do 125 mph is less important then the number of stops, and its ability to accelerate after that stop (as is the speed of a Car for the same reasons).

A further restriction is that a person can take his or her car at any time, but must work around a Schedule for a Train. If the train comes often enough this is NOT a problem. I use to live on the last Streetcar line in Pittsburgh. A Streetcar came every few minutes, I never looked at a Schedule for the Streetcars came that often. That is why it survived the general conversion to Buses in the 1950s and 1960s and is now a LRV line. Service was frequent so people took it. When you look at the Decline in Mass Transit, the drop in usage lead to the transit companies cutting back the number of trips, which lead more people to take they cars for it became more convenient. This downward decline feed on itself till the old Streetcar lines all, almost died off (And many converted to Buses to cut costs to to decline in riders but the conversion to buses also was viewed as a cut in service and more decline). What is needed is NOT only speed but Frequency of Service. Four time a day is a minimum needed (and preferable more often if possible). In my opinion Frequency is more important than top Speed, for Frequency increases the SPEED of taking a train as compared to taking a Car (Finding a Parking Space is part of "cost" of taking a Automobile, a cost that disappears if a train gets you within walking distance of where you want to go).

As to the Colorado rail car, it would be my first option on most of the routes I outlined in my previous posts. It promises to provide FREQUENT service at Reasonable prices. It will have to be operated for at least five years WITH a good Ad campaign to bring it to people's attention (I must point out I am taking about areas OUTSIDE the Northeast Corridor which already has adequate rail transportation, through expansion in the Northeast Corridor could NOT hurt). With LRV connection to various airports along the way you have the start of a Rail system in this country. As more and more people opt for rail, we can then look into a dedicated track for high speed rail.

Now the big question, how to pay for the above? It is a subject that is difficult to address for it means raising money. My first choice is a $3 a gallon gasoline tax. This serves two purposes, first it raises the money needed to pay for the improvements AND two it increases the costs of using you automobile instead of the train. I propose $3 and hope for $1 and accept the fact that the $1 will have to be cut up for more than Trains.

20 Cents of that Dollar should go to buying and setting up the above rail system (NOT High Speed rail, just Rail cars).

10 cents should go to Rails to Trails lines, to encourage biking where it can be done, including no only rails to Trails, but rails with trails and even bike lanes in major roads (One suggestion was convert four lane NON-limited access roads to two lanes, one in each direction, a center turning lane and two outside bike lanes, to encourage biking and keep traffic flowing).

40 Cents to LRV systems in most urban areas, which must include the LRV be on their own Right of way so that Automobiles do NOT tie up the LRV lines. This must be the biggest share for it promises to provide the biggest saving in fuel usage.

10 Cents for fund to eliminate "bottlenecks" that tie up traffic. This money has to be in addition to other funding, for most bottlenecks are costly to eliminate (Look up the "Big Dig" in Boston for a classic example). This funding is to minimize these bottlenecks so to reduce fuel usage.

20 Cents to rural Bridges. 1/3 of American still live in Rural Areas, many with obsolete and unsafe Bridges. These bridges restrict how people get around in the Rural areas, which run up fuel usage in those same areas. Do to the low population in Rural American, it is hard to raise the money to do such repairs.

Now the above has to be he plan for you must give something to everyone in any tax plan to get it passed. Urban and Suburban American will embrace the need for LRV systems and elimination of bottlenecks, the intracity rail system and support for biking. Rural American will embrace the Inter-city rail system (For it will provide increase transportation for Rural Americans), rails to trials (Another option other than Automobile) but the biggest demand will be the money for increase spending on Rural Roads and Bridges (Which are the biggest bottlenecks in much of Rural America). You give something to everyone, which means it has a good chance of passing. You will have people who oppose it for they can NOT think of any other way to move except by Automobile (and this is more Suburbia than either Rural or Urban America) but any real change in America has been opposed by someone.

I like the above plan for it is doable, the details can be changed and changed over time (For example Rural Bridges may be faster to replace then installing Urban LRV systems, so most of the money may go to Rural America First, then Urban America as the LRV Plans are finalized). Lets not get hanged up on the details (Including whether it is $1 or $3 a Gallon) but work to get something like this passed so we at least have a plan. Right now we have nothing and will continue to have nothing till we start to work together to get these things done.

This country would be better off with a 60mph Train that has few stops than with a 125 mph train

[FlyingSquirrel]

33. WAKE UP PEOPLE

When the Government begins to take over the travel industry like this, it can only mean one thing. They want to be able to control whether you or I can leave the country.

[libnnc]

34. It isn't the airspace, you dumbwitted fucking MORON!

IT'S THE LACK OF SPACE ON THE TARMAC AND THE RUNWAY YOU IDIOTIC COCAINE ADDLED FUCKWAD!

That and the loss of ATC staff due to mass retirements.


I want to stick a long knitting needle into my skull...



x( x( x( x( x( x(

[happyslug]

40. I don't think any said Airspace, the concern is and always has been runway restrictions.

Once in the air, there is plenty of room, the real problem has been taking off and landing. As to the military, many air bases uses the same runways as the Commercial Airlines, the terminals may be different but the same runways. Thus restriction Air Force traffic frees up runways. That is more important then the Air Space reserved for Air Force training (But both are interconnected, more air space the more runway tied up with Air Force operations).

Anyway, the problem is space ON THE GROUND and how to maximize its use. Large planes use less space on the ground PER PASSENGER, than smaller planes, but take up about the same amount of room (Landings and Takeoffs are limited on a per place basis, thus for the problem we are facing a Piper Cub takes up as much time and Space as a 747. Remember we are talking about using the runways and spacing between the planes have to be about the same no matter the size of the planes (Exceptions exist, but for our purposes can be dismissed). Thus the problem is getting TO THE PLANE and LANDING and TAKEOFFS NOT time in the sky, and no one is disputing that is the problem.

[radfringe]

36. ebay now e-fly?

[Javaman]

45. "welcome to the Depends gate, when the plane fails you, we won't!"

:rofl: