[moderators, I posted this here since the ATC congestion issue applies to US, feel free to move it to the watercooler]
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/0...askthepilot234/
Ask the Pilot
What happens when you have more -- but smaller -- planes, flying to more cities, more often? Can you say "gridlock"?
By Patrick Smith
Jun. 01, 2007 | Of all the terms presented in my recent glossary of airline-ese, two of the most familiar were "gate hold" and "holding pattern." Congestion, logjam, gridlock; if you haven't noticed, flying has become more delay-prone than ever. How this has come to be, and what can be done about it, aren't always understood. Step 1 is to lay blame where it's due. Say what you want about short-staffed airlines and an inefficient ATC (air traffic control) system, the baseline cause is better explained in simple logistics: There are too many planes carrying too few people.
Twenty years ago, here at my hometown airport, Boston's Logan, the typical rush-hour takeoff queue was a mix of wide-body jets and assorted smaller types. A typical 10-plane queue went something like this: DC-10, 727, DC-9, 767, L-1011, 757, A300, 727, 767, DC-10. That's 10 aircraft carrying about 1,800 seats. Nowadays, that 10-plane queue is a 20-plane queue, and it might look like this: CRJ-100, A319, MD-80, 757, 737, EMB-135, CRJ-100, Dash-8, A320, ERJ-170, EMB-145, A319, 767, 737, A321, BE-1900, MD-80, 757, CRJ-700, 737. For those who aren't hip to the various makes and models, those are mostly small planes. That's twice the number of aircraft carrying the same 1,800 seats.
Over the past quarter-century, remarkably low ticket prices have encouraged an ever-increasing number of fliers, to the point where twice as many people now travel by air than did in 1980. Meeting that demand, you're tempted to think, would have been an easy matter of increasing capacity: Instead of flying a 200-seat 767 from New York to Los Angeles, make it a 747 instead, with 450 seats. But that's not how it happened. Indeed capacity has grown, but the trend has been toward smaller planes, not bigger ones -- and more of them, departing more often to more cities. As the number of fliers has doubled, so has the number of planes carrying them. .....
Question for the group: should there be limits on the number of smaller A/C at busy times. Or maybe a "minimum size" of, say, 100 seats at peak times at the busiest airports?
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/0...askthepilot234/
Ask the Pilot
What happens when you have more -- but smaller -- planes, flying to more cities, more often? Can you say "gridlock"?
By Patrick Smith
Jun. 01, 2007 | Of all the terms presented in my recent glossary of airline-ese, two of the most familiar were "gate hold" and "holding pattern." Congestion, logjam, gridlock; if you haven't noticed, flying has become more delay-prone than ever. How this has come to be, and what can be done about it, aren't always understood. Step 1 is to lay blame where it's due. Say what you want about short-staffed airlines and an inefficient ATC (air traffic control) system, the baseline cause is better explained in simple logistics: There are too many planes carrying too few people.
Twenty years ago, here at my hometown airport, Boston's Logan, the typical rush-hour takeoff queue was a mix of wide-body jets and assorted smaller types. A typical 10-plane queue went something like this: DC-10, 727, DC-9, 767, L-1011, 757, A300, 727, 767, DC-10. That's 10 aircraft carrying about 1,800 seats. Nowadays, that 10-plane queue is a 20-plane queue, and it might look like this: CRJ-100, A319, MD-80, 757, 737, EMB-135, CRJ-100, Dash-8, A320, ERJ-170, EMB-145, A319, 767, 737, A321, BE-1900, MD-80, 757, CRJ-700, 737. For those who aren't hip to the various makes and models, those are mostly small planes. That's twice the number of aircraft carrying the same 1,800 seats.
Over the past quarter-century, remarkably low ticket prices have encouraged an ever-increasing number of fliers, to the point where twice as many people now travel by air than did in 1980. Meeting that demand, you're tempted to think, would have been an easy matter of increasing capacity: Instead of flying a 200-seat 767 from New York to Los Angeles, make it a 747 instead, with 450 seats. But that's not how it happened. Indeed capacity has grown, but the trend has been toward smaller planes, not bigger ones -- and more of them, departing more often to more cities. As the number of fliers has doubled, so has the number of planes carrying them. .....
Question for the group: should there be limits on the number of smaller A/C at busy times. Or maybe a "minimum size" of, say, 100 seats at peak times at the busiest airports?
