Number of Airline Flights Have Been Cut 40%

The Egyptians ruled for thousands of years yet eventually were wiped out during the Roman period.

At one time the bow and arrow was the pinnacle of weapon technology. Now, who even does that? lol

What eventually goes up must eventually come down, that also includes businesses, economies, interests. General Aviation/Commerical/Charter/Airlines are not excluded from this event that has taken place for thousands of years.

The cost of living has continued to rise over the Nation for many many years while wages have either continued to remain stable and or decline in many areas. If an airline continues to raise the price of their tickets, it gets to a point that people just can't afford to pay that, they'd rather have the toys, so they don't fly as much. Maybe once every 3-5 years instead of every year and some stop all together. Thus, it gets to a point where airlines have to cut back in order to try and maintain roughly some sort of profit. One major increase in one major part of flying can completely destroy it all together for many people and I think that's exactly what gas prices have done to GA flying. When maintenance and annuals and tie down and various costs have continued to rise, the gas prices alone have caused many GA owners to simply quit all together.

This which occurs in many many other areas of operations is just how it goes and too many things would have to change in order for things to go back to the way they use to but that would require going backwards when we live in a Nation now where we've gotten ourselves in a big darn hurry while going fast and getting things right now not later is all we know. We're spoiled.

Since 2007, airlines have cut the number of flights serving hubs like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Memphis, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis by a whopping 40%. Nationally and overall, the number of flights have been reduced 14%. (Source: The Week)

This impacts many things, from the local economies to airline pilot hirings, from ATC reductions to customer inconvenience during peak times.

Will it ever rebound? Is this the "new normal"?
 
Last edited:
The hyper-hassles of airline travel have caused many former pax to check their hole cards and start driving instead. SWA from DAL to AUS is only 45 minutes, but the door-to-door trip time is ~same as the ~three-hour drive.

On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is the way to go. DOwntown DC to Midtown in ~ the same amount of time as the overall airline hassle.
 
I am given a choice whether to fly or drive to Wichita from Denver every six months which is about a 7 hour drive. The company will provide a rental car or an airline ticket. I always choose to drive.
 
I am given a choice whether to fly or drive to Wichita from Denver every six months which is about a 7 hour drive. The company will provide a rental car or an airline ticket. I always choose to drive.

No GA option??
 
No GA option??
They will allow you to fly your own airplane or rent but will only reimburse you the cost of an airline ticket. Of course if the airplane is going back to Wichita for an inspection we fly it there. I don't know if it is such an advantage, however, because you need to stay until it is done.
 
St. Louis' death is a mystery to me. On paper, it looks like the ideal hub for a national airline, given its central location.

Airport location is terrible, only recently is there viable reasonable cost public transportation to Downtown/ Landing area. Another reason is that Gambling is an economic black hole for the area. The country does not need this much gambling that isn't State run.
 
St. Louis' death is a mystery to me. On paper, it looks like the ideal hub for a national airline, given its central location.

It was, until the guys with the Chicago hub bought out the local airline.

No city has a right to airline service. No passenger can be forced to use a local airport and can drive hundreds of miles to his destination or to get a cheaper flight. Deregulation is a success story, as long as you don't work for an airline. We have exactly the air transportation system that the people wanted. The issue is that it may not be what you wanted. If you don't like it, don't fly. The reason why you hate the TSA is because you forgot what we had before the TSA.
 
I think it's the "new normal", for now. It's probably going to continue to evolve, though.

Big population centers will still have their big airports and smaller cities will either do without, or with a diminished schedule that leads to fewer choices that leads to higher prices that leads to fewer passengers that leads to fewer flights...

I've seen the KC airport when it was a 'big deal' back in the '70s, and I see it whenever I fly commercially. I have family and friends that have to drive so far just to get to an airport that they might as well drive the whole trip - wherever they are going. One of the joys of living in flyover country.
 
From my house on Quivira to MCI was 57 miles. If I flew to DFW, I'd fly back over my house about two hours after I pulled out of the driveway. OJC was four miles.



I think it's the "new normal", for now. It's probably going to continue to evolve, though.

Big population centers will still have their big airports and smaller cities will either do without, or with a diminished schedule that leads to fewer choices that leads to higher prices that leads to fewer passengers that leads to fewer flights...

I've seen the KC airport when it was a 'big deal' back in the '70s, and I see it whenever I fly commercially. I have family and friends that have to drive so far just to get to an airport that they might as well drive the whole trip - wherever they are going. One of the joys of living in flyover country.
 
From my house on Quivira to MCI was 57 miles. If I flew to DFW, I'd fly back over my house about two hours after I pulled out of the driveway. OJC was four miles.


Yeah - it's a lot of fun. OJC is 4 miles for me, too. But 45 to MCI, then park miles away, wait for a shuttle, get to the terminal, check in if necessary, wait in the security line (sometimes a long wait, sometimes not), board, then fly right back over OJC hours later.

Some things never change. Except for the probing. That's changed.
 
There used to be a lot more open seats than today, so with the extra luggage fees, the airlines get to have more fuel money. It'll be interesting to see how Delta does with the refinery. Having delivered to first load of oil to them and talked to the refinery guys, I have a positive outlook for the operation to work. Now, if they REALLY wanted to do the very best they could, they would get hold of a drilling outfit of the same caliber to bid and exploit some leases with to feed the refineries. If they could buy some Balkaan field lease in N Dakota, that would be optimum.
 
Well, they did implement RVSM effectively doubling the airspace from FL280 to FL410...the sweet spot for commercial air travel. .

The FAA had to do pretty much zip to "implement" RVSM in the NAS. Almost all the effort/expense falls on aircraft owner/operators.
 
Yeah, if somebody bought a refinery you'd think they might have thought about that as well. Maybe they would have done so if they had an energy department to handle fuel supplies.

There used to be a lot more open seats than today, so with the extra luggage fees, the airlines get to have more fuel money. It'll be interesting to see how Delta does with the refinery. Having delivered to first load of oil to them and talked to the refinery guys, I have a positive outlook for the operation to work. Now, if they REALLY wanted to do the very best they could, they would get hold of a drilling outfit of the same caliber to bid and exploit some leases with to feed the refineries. If they could buy some Balkaan field lease in N Dakota, that would be optimum.
 
The FAA had to do pretty much zip to "implement" RVSM in the NAS. Almost all the effort/expense falls on aircraft owner/operators.

Isn't that the way it should be? Who benefits more from the efficiency, the FAA or the users of the extra airspace?
 
The point was that if the airspace doubles then it's going to take more resources to control it, ergo justification for some increased expense.

I don't like paying more taxes either. But the claim was made that taxes went up while service went down and I was simply pointing out a service that went up.
 
Isn't that the way it should be? Who benefits more from the efficiency, the FAA or the users of the extra airspace?

Yep. The users gain the benefit of RVSM.

Unlike the requirement for ADS-B out.
 
The size of the airspace remained constant and I'd be willing to bet the number of controllers required to work it did too. How much controller time is required to track a bunch of airplanes mostly flying level at assigned speeds?



The point was that if the airspace doubles then it's going to take more resources to control it, ergo justification for some increased expense.

I don't like paying more taxes either. But the claim was made that taxes went up while service went down and I was simply pointing out a service that went up.
 
The point was that if the airspace doubles then it's going to take more resources to control it, ergo justification for some increased expense.

I don't like paying more taxes either. But the claim was made that taxes went up while service went down and I was simply pointing out a service that went up.

I respectfully disagree...

The airspace was doubled and each sector is managed by the same amount of controllers.. But,,, More aircraft are using the same airspace , and those aircraft are paying more fuel taxes which pay for the controllers. So , in effect, more tax dollars are paying for the same service..:dunno:

Kinda like a section of town that has, lets say 3.4 LEO's.. Some developer comes in and builds a few highrises.. Population doubles, property tax income doubles.. Same amount of cops...:yes:
 
I am given a choice whether to fly or drive to Wichita from Denver every six months which is about a 7 hour drive. The company will provide a rental car or an airline ticket. I always choose to drive.

Awe, that's just not right. Not with 1K1 just sitting there welcoming everyone to stop in for lunch. :)
 
The reduction in air travellers is also manifested with air cargo. Most business are shipping via ground rather than by air. The difference between ground and air can be as much as three times the cost by air. With the current economy situation it makes more sense to drive than fly. For a family of four driving saves you a bundle on airline tickets and car rental.

José
 
Awe, that's just not right. Not with 1K1 just sitting there welcoming everyone to stop in for lunch. :)
Hey, I've eaten dinner at 1K1 with a friend who was building a house there. Great little airport.
 
Back
Top