Delta CEO on oil, airports and why flying is so "awful"

[stlflyguy]

I'm guessing you haven't been in an ATC facility in the past 20 years? It's eye opening to see massive mainframes that still have those vaccuum tube things in them . ..

Why, for example, are there 16 area centers? How does this make any economic or organizational sense when real time data is available? One primary facility and one backup makes far, far more sense.

(That is, unless you're a Congressman who likes having a huge, wasteful government facility in your district. Or one of numerous area-facility middle/upper level management types that has alot to lose if things consolidate).

The GAO, which is totally non-partisan, routinely criticizes the FAA/ATC system as one of the most wasteful, non-innovative, non-able to modernize branches of government. They've written books on the subject for the past decade, at least, and you can look it up if you'd like details.

Bottom line . . more pavement would help. But that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to modernization.

Okay, great. So you replace the Univac's with a bunch of up-to-date computers. You still have the issue of funneling aircraft to land on the pavement provided. You can get as many aircraft in the sky as you want, but it'll still take at least one minute between the one aircraft who crosses 50' above the threshold for landing and the next aircraft to depart the same piece of pavement. Provide more well suited runways and you'll increase the number of operations. NIMBY soon rears its head.

While I somewhat agree with centralizing ATC helping with the budget, it doesn't necessarily help with the redundancy. I also think that congress has created it's own monster with the FAA by giving certain mandates to the agency while financially hamstringing the execution of such mandates.

stlflyguy

 

[PHXFLYR]

Until there's more pavement to land on, I doubt that a "more efficient" ATC system will help. I think the special interests are trying to sell something....

stlflyguy

Yes they are. And it's called cabotage. All those bilateral agreements that govern overseas operations in other countries come up for renewal in a few years. US managers are itching to change the foreign ownership rules so that they could get their hands on additional cash. I really think this current down turn is a lot of posturing on their part to see this thru. Time will tell :erm:


PHXFLYR

 

[Turtle21]

.... Everybody needs to relax....


Bye Bye--General Lee

Damn skippy! Come Nov 20th ain't no one gonna be relaxed... for three decades more. The Confederacy shoulda relaxed before the war, they didn't get to relax ever since.

Enjoy the calm before the storm.

 

[Soverytired]

Okay, great. So you replace the Univac's with a bunch of up-to-date computers. You still have the issue of funneling aircraft to land on the pavement provided. You can get as many aircraft in the sky as you want, but it'll still take at least one minute between the one aircraft who crosses 50' above the threshold for landing and the next aircraft to depart the same piece of pavement. Provide more well suited runways and you'll increase the number of operations. NIMBY soon rears its head.

While I somewhat agree with centralizing ATC helping with the budget, it doesn't necessarily help with the redundancy. I also think that congress has created it's own monster with the FAA by giving certain mandates to the agency while financially hamstringing the execution of such mandates.

stlflyguy

Again, pavement is not the primary problem, although it would certainly help. Inefficient enroute structures cost the airlines tons of money in wasted fuel (wasted on routes, wasted in holds, etc.).

Again, MONEY is DEFINITELY not the problem . . . airlines and passengers have been paying fees for decades to fund this, and there's little to show for it.

Having 16 area centers makes no sense, surely you'd agree? Even having 1 primary and 3 "backup" would be enough, wouldn't you agree? Even that is ridiculous overkill.

Tip of the iceburg, really. What about an ATC system that is primarily driven by computer software commands to data-linked aircraft . . especially for en-route traffic? Think of the money and efficiency that could be achieved! This one-person-on-the-radio at a time is antiquated beyond belief!

Separation standards need to be reviewed as well (especially if the above suggestion takes hold). While the US was scared to death about reducing separation from 4000 ft to 1000ft (RVSM), Europe had been doing it for years!

ATC in the US is a joke . . . or would be, if it weren't the US Taxpayer, Airlines, and the flying public who weren't getting raped to pay for it. The GAO has said as much on an annual basis for the past 2 decades.

None of this is likely to change. In addition to huge bureaucratic inertia inherent to large federal government agencies, the ATC system is like AMTRAK . . every politician wants to get a piece of it in his back yard. Controllers are heavily unionized and fight change at all costs, except for changing pay rates ever upward (as a good union should).