|
Post by jeffolie on May 21, 2008 19:15:25 GMT -6
Almost every major carrier, from American Airlines to Delta Air Lines and US Airways, is crossing cities off its list, leaving passengers with fewer choices than a year ago. The airports have grown quiet in many other communities, too. And the service cuts are far from over, as jet fuel prices rise, airlines shut down and companies consider mergers, like the Delta-Northwest deal. Financially strapped airlines are cutting service, and nearly 30 cities across the United States have seen their scheduled service disappear in the last year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Others include New Haven, Conn.; Wilmington, Del.; Lake Havasu City, Ariz.; and Boulder City, Nev. www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/business/21air.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rssThe continental US has no-fly zone cities.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 22, 2008 19:18:43 GMT -6
Rather than increase funding for the very inefficient and fuel intensive airline industry, congress should be shifting support toward high speed and regional rail
The Hub abd spoke system of air travel is one of the worst and most inefficient ideas yet to come from the air industry.
Our town is losing flights by the day. The few that are left are too expensive, necessitating a 2-3 hour drive to get to a hub city to get a reasonable fair and a non multi connection flight
The former chairman of American was on Lou Dobbs the other night - he is suggesting re-regulating the industry - de-regulation has been terrible for the airlines - safety and service have declined ever since. He even suggested nationalization. It is even more credible, as he freely admitted to being a deregulation cheerleader when he was in charge.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 23, 2008 17:20:19 GMT -6
The accident records show that airline safety has not declined since deregulation began. It has never been better. Outsourcing of maintenance is a serious concern, however.
I heard Crandall claim on Dobbs he was against deregulation, but had to go along with it. It was a brave new world back then, with the prospect of new carriers springing up everywhere.
GB
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 23, 2008 20:30:10 GMT -6
The airlines have cut back on maintenance so much that its only a matter of time before it catches up.
The term a "wing and a prayer" comes to mind when stepping aboard a plane lately.
So yes safety is being compromised
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 24, 2008 7:11:53 GMT -6
Poor maintenance shows up mostly in mechanical flight delays, not accident rates.
The Alaska A/L MD-80 crash off Socalif several years ago was a notable exception. It was tied directly to shortcutting maintenance at their Oakland base. They had bought property a few years before at the Long Beach airport for that maintenance base, but changed their minds and put it in Oakland instead. There was a serious shortage of aircraft mechanics in the SF Bay area at that time, so there must have been some govt incentives to sway their decision...
The AA A-300 that crashed in NY in late 2001, was due to defective design and an overzealous pilot who overstressed the rudder. The Comair regional jet that took off from the wrong runway in PA a few years ago had nothing to do with maintenance.
Accident rates worldwide improve every year.
A few people in the US die each year in commercial aviation. 40,000+ die in auto accidents. 80,000+ die of accidents in hospitals.
In fact, there are programs transferring lessons learned from aviation to medicine. Crew Resource Management grew out of the accidents happening because the copilot and other crew were intimidated by a belligerent captain, the exact situation in the operating room even more of the time.
Airlines in much of the third world still have this order of command in the cockpit: the Captain God then everybody else.
That's true in Japan and Korea even today. The copilot is the captain's servant, and must provide for all his needs, even on layovers.
I'll be flying from Long Beach to Kansas City next week on Useless Air, and the wife to Chicago on Jetblue the following week. It is of no concern at all. Our greatest danger is probably hitting a deer on the trip driving back.
GB
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 25, 2008 5:45:20 GMT -6
Yes that is correct that flying is relatively safer than driving. However the odds of surviving a car crash are much greater than the odds of surviving a plane crash, as well as the stats for frequent fliers have a much higher probability or being involved in a crash than the occasional flier.
Yes overall air safety has improved over the years. regardless, it is still a ticking time bomb - the air traffic controls system is an antique and barely able to keep up with volume, and clearly airlines have cut back on maintenance, as you point out the immediate effect is minor things at worst causing delays, however a lax attitude breeds company wide, and it will likely progress into critical areas that could affect safety. the rash of US ScAir crashes a decade ago were mostly attributed to lax maintenance and falsified maintenance records
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 25, 2008 17:51:38 GMT -6
"the rash of US ScAir crashes a decade ago were mostly attributed to lax maintenance and falsified maintenance records "
I don't comprehend; please cite some of those accidents.
GB
|
|