cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (09/18/84)
Paraphrased from an article in "General Aviation News" - September 10, 1984: Washington, DC. - ...Harold J. Pareti, president of People Express, said in a letter to CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board)...that his company proposed "removing all G. A. (General Aviation) activity from congested urban airports" as a solution to the problem [of airport congestion]. In another letter, Alfred E. Kahn, the former CAB Chairman, suggested that the government "ration private corporate jets out of the crowded airports at peak hours." Kahn added that the assumption that general aviation is entitled to landing rights at these public airports "is simply shocking." The NBAA (National Business Aircraft Association) responded to these suggestions. NBAA said People Express "speaks of a 'phenomenal increase' in general aviation and military traffic and then fails to give one shred of data on which to base such a claim." Citing FAA airport data, the association noted that general aviation and military operations were down 10 percent from pre-strike levels in 1981 at Newark; down 42 percent at LaGuardia; down 20 percent at Atlanta; down by 46 percent at Denver; and down by 12 percent at O'Hare. In contrast, People Express has increased 87 percent over prestrike levels. A total of 21 airlines asked the CAB for anti-trust immunity so they could discuss scheduling after the FAA warned last month that if the carriers do not act, the government would impose its own restrictions at the airports. ---End of Paraphrase--- Now, what do we General Aviation types do about this? First, a letter writing campaign is in order. People Express is located in Newark, N.J. Mentioning that you will not fly People Express, and will attempt to persuade others not to fly People Express is in order. Letters to the FAA, Congressmen, and the like are also called for. If the airlines are allowed to totally take over airports, we will eventually not be able to fly anywhere. Another thing that we can do is to responsibly use the airspace. Taking a Cessna 150 into O'Hare at 17:00 hrs on a Friday is probably not a good idea. (Assuming, of course, that all of the TCA regulations are met.) Again, letter campaigns for reliever airports are in order. This is a flame against 121 carriers! Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
bob@decvax.UUCP (Robert Bismuth) (09/20/84)
< ------ this line left intentionally blank ------ >
I agree with Jeff Williams' sentiments regarding the ridiculous suggestions
made by People's Express. I certainly will try never to fly with that
carrier and will let them know the reason why. Too often 121 carriers think
they own the sky - quite often to the extent of ignoring Part 91 right of
way rules. One day some Captain is going to fly right through a 150 who
had right of way, but as Richard Bach said in A Gift of Wings - the 150
will be said to be in the wrong because "... the light plane hadn't filed
a flight plan."
Already I have noted a desire to keep us small guys out of TCAs. The landing
fee for Boston used to be only $5. Last month it went up to $15 and next
month they're putting it up to $25. Next they'll do what the UK airport
authority for London Heathrow does - $75 per passenger and crew member!!
If god or whoever had meant us to only fly the airlines, he or she
would have cut our legs off to fit the seats in steerage class and
given us plastic teeth to eat the food with.
--- bob
(decvax!bob)rb@houxn.UUCP (09/21/84)
Does the London-Heathrow $75 fee apply to ALL aircraft?....
Does that mean that $75 of every ticket purchased from airlines
goes to the airport authority?
If so, no wonder the $169 one-way fare disappeared!!
Rob Botwin
.....{utah-cs|seismo|decvax}!harpo!eagle!hogpc!houxn!rb
ATT/IS Labs (201) 577-5016 (Cornet 8-270-5016)
FJ 1B-130