Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   If you live in a smaller town, expect to have your airport shut down in the next few years unless the FAA overhauls the entire air-traffic control system. But don't worry -- your government will come through for you   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
83
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

9006 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2007 at 3:32 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



83 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
overlord_mike
2007-09-17 3:35:44 PM  
yeah right.

Government = Box 0' Morons
 
j.r.20k
2007-09-17 3:37:34 PM  
yeah, i was just thinking about how the flyover states really needed to be more detached and isolated from the rest of america.
 
Noirceuil
2007-09-17 3:39:57 PM  
It is sad, your country slips more and more into the depths of a second-world nation everyday.
 
REOIV
2007-09-17 3:40:38 PM  
And we need the govt controlling & supporting the airlines because?
 
joness0154
2007-09-17 3:40:41 PM  
The small town airports won't get shut down, subby, they just won't get air carrier service anymore.

Which, as a GA pilot, I wouldn't mind.
 
masonreloaded
2007-09-17 3:41:50 PM  
REOIV: And we need the govt controlling & supporting the airlines because?

That's pre-9/11 thinking.
 
bongmiester
2007-09-17 3:42:14 PM  
rotsky
 
clear_prop [TotalFark]
2007-09-17 3:44:10 PM  
The whole "It's ATC's fault there are delays" argument is complete bullshiat.

The limit has always been, and will always be, runway capacity at hub airports. Robert Poole (quoted in the article) is a farking moron. Runway capacity is a physics issue, and has nothing to do with ATC.
 
danic101
2007-09-17 3:44:22 PM  
The Goverment needs to stay out of the lives of people and business as much as possible.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 3:45:34 PM  
REOIV: And we need the govt controlling & supporting the airlines because?

According to FARKers we need airlines for our economy to function. Since we need it, they posit that the only logical conclusion is for the Government to control them. Because, as we all know, Government is great at running things what with the stellar track record of Social Security, TSA, DHS, FEMA, etc. Since we need the airlines the wise man understands that the last thing we should do is get the Government involved as it will make it costlier and less efficient.
 
superman82
2007-09-17 3:45:50 PM  
One more reason the government should back way out of the many pies it has it's fingers in. They need to stop trying to control every aspect of our lives and focus on things that private corporations can't do.
 
slickiedoo
2007-09-17 3:46:09 PM  
I can't wait to see how fast the Highways that are already in dire need of attention, ESPECIALLY Virginia..sheesh, deteriorate if every one is flying rather than driving.
 
Stormneedle [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-09-17 3:47:13 PM  
For some reason lately I keep hearing that the FAA needs to upgrade. I'm hearing it often. But something about it sounds odd. Even after reading the fine article I feel only vaguely informed, as if an upgrade were only one point of a long line of assumptions.

Maybe it's conditioning. I've been told Vista is an upgrade to Windows, after all.
 
Helios1182
2007-09-17 3:47:15 PM  
clear_prop: The whole "It's ATC's fault there are delays" argument is complete bullshiat.

The limit has always been, and will always be, runway capacity at hub airports. Robert Poole (quoted in the article) is a farking moron. Runway capacity is a physics issue, and has nothing to do with ATC.

The airlines, FAA, ATC, and others have said that they can't deal with all the traffic from an ATC perspective. There are other physical issues, but traffic control is a nightmare at this point. And if you can make more efficient use of the current infrastructure you don't need to add more runways as quickly.
 
FeBolas
2007-09-17 3:47:47 PM  
The ATC is also about to be vastly undermanned with inept controllers.

Management at the ATC has been *trying* to get the experienced people to retire so that they can bring in people at the lowest pay grade... but they're already dangerously close to having no experienced controllers to do the training.

I know a couple controllers, and it's about to get really *really* bad.
 
unit63
2007-09-17 3:48:58 PM  
Noirceuil: It is sad, your country slips more and more into the depths of a second-world nation everyday.

The hell? You don't know what the "second world" is, do you? I'm sure there are those who would make the case that we're slipping that way, but what's described in this article isn't the reason why.
 
finnished
2007-09-17 3:49:29 PM  
Don't worry, I'm sure the TSA will stay, even if the flights won't.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 3:49:39 PM  
FeBolas: I know a couple controllers, and it's about to get really *really* bad.

When Captain Kramer hears about this, the shiat's really gonna hit the fan.
 
DaisyMay
2007-09-17 3:50:20 PM  
Noirceuil: It is sad, your country slips more and more into the depths of a second-world nation everyday.

Unfortunatly, I fear you are correct.
Oh well, 250 years wasnt a bad run.
/Amsterdam, here I come!
 
Aarontology
2007-09-17 3:51:25 PM  
That should bring up the property values of the town I grew up in. I could see the Sikorsky airport from my back yard. I also remember several crashes.
 
LordOfBacon
2007-09-17 3:51:59 PM  
Noirceuil: It is sad, your country slips more and more into the depths of a second-world nation everyday.

You know, I've heard of first-world nations. Heard lots about third world nations.

What is a second-world nation?

A place where you can only get under-age hookers SOME of the time?
 
FuelCycle
2007-09-17 3:52:37 PM  
danic101: The Goverment needs to stay out of the lives of people and business as much as possible.

Yea, and do this while protecting everyone, providing health care, preventing fraud, and reducing pollution.
 
CBW22489
2007-09-17 3:52:54 PM  
The government will save us all huh? I'll believe it when I see it. All I've seen so far is incompetence. Democrats and Republicans both. It's just one giant cluster-fark up there in DC.
 
lohphat
2007-09-17 3:53:29 PM  
clear_prop: The limit has always been, and will always be, runway capacity at hub airports.

QFT.

This.

In spades.

The FAA is politicized due to lobbying by the air-carriers to get free handouts and tax breaks. The FUD and outright lies they've bee trying to push on Congress are appalling. "Oh we have these security fees to pay!" you know the fees CUSTOMERS pay as surcharges on each ticket.

Slimy bastards. The cut the income of their employees by 30% and then give management a 15% raise.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 3:53:40 PM  
FuelCycle: Yea, and do this while protecting everyone, providing health care, preventing fraud, and reducing pollution.

The second one there? That's not staying out of people's lives.
 
Lawnchair
2007-09-17 3:54:40 PM  
If the country had even halfway acceptable passenger rail, directly connected to some major airports, it would be great for some of these airports to stop flying.

The thing that is boggling to non-Americans is that cities of, say, 100k or so... Sioux City for instance... have no passenger rail, one intercity bus a day (if they're on the interstate), but six or seven flights a day.
 
FuelCycle
2007-09-17 3:55:20 PM  
Was that a question? Just for the record, are you saying its staying in people's lives?
 
copper1861
2007-09-17 3:55:51 PM  
Noirceuil: It is sad, your country slips more and more into the depths of a second-world nation everyday.

We're joining the Soviet Union?
 
clear_prop [TotalFark]
2007-09-17 3:56:41 PM  
Helios1182: The airlines, FAA, ATC, and others have said that they can't deal with all the traffic from an ATC perspective. There are other physical issues, but traffic control is a nightmare at this point. And if you can make more efficient use of the current infrastructure you don't need to add more runways as quickly.

Traffic control is only a nightmare around over capacity hub airports. I fly around/over SFO all the time, and the issues are on the ground. Traffic in the air isn't a nightmare.

For a view into what it is like on the ground, here is a recording of the ground controller from JFK during the afternoon push: JFK Ground (via YouTube) (new window)
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 3:57:06 PM  
Lawnchair: If the country had even halfway acceptable passenger rail, directly connected to some major airports, it would be great for some of these airports to stop flying.

It's too hard for a business to compete with Amtrak. If a business is inefficient, they lose money and go out of business. If a Government "service" is inefficient they just take more money as they need it. It's the same thing with education. It's too hard to compete with what people think is "free".
 
JoeBagadonutz
2007-09-17 3:58:40 PM  
The terms are:
old world= Europe and such
new world= Americas
third world= all the developing shiatholes left over

There is no first world and second world.
 
neegrow
2007-09-17 4:01:01 PM  
subby, smaller airports will NOT be affected. This is becoming a hot topic because airlines are lobbying and trying to generate more "scare stories" like this one.. and seeing that only about 600,000 people are pilots in the USA, most people don't grasp that this is a very bad thing.

If you are not within the airspace of a large airport, there is no need to even speak with an air traffic controller or approach control, only the airport's tower, which is NOT part of the main air traffic control system. Only a few large airports (ORD, EWR, JFK, LAX, ATL, etc.) have this problem.

and to everybody else, please note that the airlines want our air traffic control system to go private, requiring user fees. This is because the ATC system is operated by taxes solely levies upon the airlines, not general aviation (GA) aircraft. This makes sense because GA craft do not use large airports, and are NOT subject to delays or overload even when in the air traffic control system, as they are not permitted to fly into the busy/problematic areas.

Airlines are tyring to leverage their way out of paying for our ATC system, we the only country in the world with a free air traffic control system, so GA aircraft pay no fees at all.

the FAA has been updating the traffic control centers and radar sites over the past few years, but at the same time, airlines want to feed more flights into airports that were never designed to do so... makes sense that the airlines should pay for the upgrades to me.
 
Noirceuil
2007-09-17 4:01:33 PM  
LordOfBacon: You know, I've heard of first-world nations. Heard lots about third world nations.

What is a second-world nation?

A place where you can only get under-age hookers SOME of the time?

Close. Second-world nations are those that would be similar to the Eastern-bloc countries. Not quite as bad as third world, but have some time to go before first-world.

I would define a first world country as any country people migrate to, and second and third as countries where people leave.
 
copper1861
2007-09-17 4:01:37 PM  
JoeBagadonutz: There is no first world and second world.

You're an idiot, especially since Wikipedia is at your fingertips.
 
Lawnchair
2007-09-17 4:03:09 PM  
mmm... pancake:
It's too hard for a business to compete with Amtrak. If a business is inefficient, they lose money and go out of business.

More to wit, it's damn, damn hard to compete with highways and airports that are subsidized to hell and back. The railroads in this country have to pay property tax on every foot of railbed in the country. They have to provide their own traffic management. They don't have eminent domain when they need to expand a yard or add a line.
 
Some 'Splainin' To Do
2007-09-17 4:05:55 PM  
JoeBagadonutz: The terms are:
old world= Europe and such
new world= Americas
third world= all the developing shiatholes left over

There is no first world and second world.

Um, no. The first world was defined as the developed capitalist world (Europe, America, parts of Asia), the second world was defined as the Soviet's and their proxy states, and the third world was the undeveloped remainder that the first and second world fought over.

The second world is now an anachronism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
 
pearls before swine
2007-09-17 4:05:59 PM  
Passenger air travel and rail travel runs at a profit exactly nowhere on earth. These services are vital to a modern economy, however, so they require public support, whether through cash subsidies, infrastructure (when's the last time an airline build an airport?), or some other means.

The question is not whether, it's how. "No government" is an idiot's wish. "Better government" is the only rational goal.

People who simply state that all government is bad and refuse to help make it better are worthless to a civil society.
 
Xanatos451
2007-09-17 4:06:03 PM  
BusinessWeek reports the air traffic control network runs on software that is so outdated that there are only six programmers left in the U.S. who are able to update the code.

Man, talk about job security.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 4:08:02 PM  
neegrow: and to everybody else, please note that the airlines want our air traffic control system to go private, requiring user fees.

Good. That way, only the people who benefit directly from it pay for it. Tack it on to the price of the ticket. $5/ticket for airlines and $.10 per mile flown in a GA craft. FAA estimates 768,000,000 passengers a year travel by air. That's 3.84 billion a year. Reasonable?
 
TheGreyPiper
2007-09-17 4:13:58 PM  
Yes, folks, this is the same government some people want performing heart transplants and brain surgery.
 
neegrow
2007-09-17 4:14:44 PM  
mmm... pancake: neegrow: and to everybody else, please note that the airlines want our air traffic control system to go private, requiring user fees.

Good. That way, only the people who benefit directly from it pay for it. Tack it on to the price of the ticket. $5/ticket for airlines and $.10 per mile flown in a GA craft. FAA estimates 768,000,000 passengers a year travel by air. That's 3.84 billion a year. Reasonable?


It's easy to understand how non-pilots come to these sorts of conclusions.. I believe it's actually already above $5 per ticket for airlines. GA aircraft use very little of the system, and nearly all of it in areas with little load (ie: there is basically no need for ATC's ARTCC's & TRACON's if there was only GA at it's current state) it is only used BECAUSE they have to avoid all the airlines. If it weren't for airlines expanding flights, there wouldn't be a need for these fees at all. GA is an innocent bystander.
 
JoeBagadonutz
2007-09-17 4:16:19 PM  
I stand by my education. I actually took world history and geography. That's what I learned in those courses. Wiki is an arbitrary reference not usable in scholarly papers and in accredited colleges. I think you will find, with some real research, that the terms old and new world were first. If they are archaic, then perhaps, so am I. Plus I'm not an idiot, but you are a demonsterable asshole.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 4:16:30 PM  
pearls before swine: These services are vital to a modern economy, however, so they require public support

That doesn't logically follow. The things that are vital to a modern economy should have the least amount of Government involvement if we are to maximize our benefit that they contribute to it. This is especially true considering the track record of Government inefficiency and waste.

REOIV: See what I mean?
 
hubcity
2007-09-17 4:17:37 PM  
This piece kind of echoes the editorial thread running in Continental's magazine. On the one hand, "free flight" seems like a good idea...but it's been given a name that makes it hard to argue against, which is generally a mark of a corporate snowjob. Nice to hear a bit of the other side, in that the people Continental want to share the tab don't actually use the stuff they're being asked to pay for.

Why was I reading the Continental magazine? Hell, ya gotta read something if you forgot to bring anything to read, and you get through the SkyMall catalog far too quickly...
 
The Icelander
2007-09-17 4:17:47 PM  
I'm two hours from Philadelphia and an hour and a half from BWI. Why should I care?
 
starrion
2007-09-17 4:19:03 PM  
@mmm... pancake

We in GA already pay for our usage in fuel taxes. They also have the $5 ticket surcharge as well.

Going to user fees as the article suggests would result in charges everytime you use ATC. Increase charges and less people use something that exists for safety. Flight following for example: the airplane squawks an ID code. The controller can follow the plane and advise when traffic is going to conflict. This cuts way down on mid-air collisions.

In addition, GA generates lots of revenue for the airports and towns where they are located. Start nickel and Diming tenning and twentying pilots and there will be a lot less GA flying. Which is no help to the traffic problem and a net loss overall to everybody but the airlines.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 4:20:25 PM  
neegrow: GA is an innocent bystander.

No, the taxpayer is the innocent bystander. Find a way to pay for the system you use. If the airlines use it the most, they should be charged the most. If GA uses it a little bit, they should be charged a little bit. For the most part I'm on your side.
 
clear_prop [TotalFark]
2007-09-17 4:24:12 PM  
mmm... pancake: No, the taxpayer is the innocent bystander. Find a way to pay for the system you use. If the airlines use it the most, they should be charged the most. If GA uses it a little bit, they should be charged a little bit. For the most part I'm on your side.

GA pays already, in the form of fuel taxes. The per use tax is just a more expensive way to collect the money.
 
mmm... pancake
2007-09-17 4:24:59 PM  
clear_prop: GA pays already, in the form of fuel taxes. The per use tax is just a more expensive way to collect the money.

Ok. If they pay already then I see no reason to charge MORE.
 
Airbus-Driver
2007-09-17 4:25:39 PM  
mmm...pancake: ATC for profit is a bad mistake. Safety is expensive, and to make a profit you have to cut your expenses. As soon as profit-based ATC goes into effect we will see a rapid decline in safety. The crashes will be used to justify higher fees for "more safety" but in reality they will be "more profit".

For a good example of why your system doesn't work and will kill people, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937 for the Uberlingen midair.

Europe has the system you describe. They have almost no general aviation. There is a reason almost all European airline crews are trained here in the US instead of in their home countries - the airlines simply can't afford to train crews over there.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.