So who uses the system more?

NC Pilot

NC Pilot

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
1,454
Location
NC
Display Name
Display name:
NC Pilot
Took a snapshot off of FlightAware and looked at all the types of planes out and about in the system. Here's the breakdown. Of the commercial airliners (and I had to guess at some) the 737-700 was most prolific in the air at time - 288

The most prolific GA plane - the lowly Skyhawk with 67 in the air followed by the Hawker 800 with 60.

Total Commercial Type airplanes - 3568
Total GA type airplanes - 1484

So, who uses the system more and who should pay for the system? HMmmmm:redface:

My spreadsheet is attached...I hope
 
One point that should be acknowledged is that on a percentage of use versus percentage of payments basis, the air carriers do pay more than light GA. What the air carriers don't tell people is that the air traffic system is sized and scoped based on the needs of the air carriers, and the size and complexity (and therefore total cost) of the system is driven by their demands. If light GA went away, it would hardly make a dent in the cost of the ATC system (even the outlying airport VFR/contract towers are generally there because of a half a dozen regional carrier flights a day), and the amount the air carriers would have to pay would be higher, not lower, since the total cost would change little but GA's contribution would disappear. Would it cost any less to operate the ARTCC's and the big, expensive TRACON's like NY, Potomac, Charlotte, etc., if GA traffic disappeared? Not significantly.

OTOH, if the air carriers went away, the cost of the ATC system would plummet dramatically. For example, all those Class B airspaces would disappear, and the traffic burden placed on the TRACON's in those areas would drop to near zero unless the weather is sub-VFR, and even then, the VFR flyers would stay home. We could cut TRACON's like NY, Potomac, Chicago, etc., to a tiny fraction of their current size, and with it, the cost of the system.

Since the system is as expensive as it is because it's the way the air carriers want it, not the way GA needs it, the air carriers should be paying a disproportionate share of the cost. GA should only be paying the marginal additional cost of what little additional system capacity is driven by our use. The current fuel tax structure provides a good matching of the cost of the system required to meet the users' demand for system capability with the demand those users place on the system -- bigger planes burning more fuel require a disproportionately larger and more complex ATC system. Since that's a good match of user demand to system cost, there is no need to alter it.

Y'all can take that and play with the wording to suit your style when you write your Representatives and Senators.
 
Very well worded and true, Ron.

Gives me an idea.....

maybe we should fight fire with fire....lets start a campaign to drive all the airliners bankrupt.....

Dargh, it won't help, the government will just bail 'em all out. sigh.
 
Blakey has made statements about the coming VLJ saturation that will put a heavier load on ATC. I can't picture that being an issue. It seems most who would buy a VLJ for personal use or even charter are most likely already using King Airs and the like; flying in the flight levels.
 
Be careful with your arguments NC.
By your argument thirty percent of the air traffic is GA, and the airlines have been arguing that we should bear 30% of ATC's costs, not that we should bear a majority. So the numbers you posted only validate the airline's arguments.

Ron's argument holds a lot more water IMHO, the system looks like it does because of the needs of airlines, and that we are users of the surplus, not the major cost driver DESPITE the fact that we are using 30 percent of the resources.
 
And I'd add that we don't use 30% of the resources. The "a blip is a blip" argument is only valid in my opinion in the Class B airspaces. Enroute, we're a negligble workload. And we're not much workload for approaches outside the Class B - you get dumped at an IAF, your services are terminated, and you don't take up any more ATC time except for the "has that FLIB cancelled/closed yet?" tickling in the back of the controller's mind.
 
Ron Levy, you have expressed clearly what I have been trying to articulate to some folks... do you teach this well, too?
 
Let's not forget the military aircraft. When I was flying today, they made up 1/4 of the traffic I was looking out for today. I don't know if they show up on Flightaware.

In addition, the little planes usually don't fly at the altitudes the commercial aircraft find most efficient- we don't contribute to the conjestion.

I find it ironic that the airports with the worst delays seem to be those with the fewest GA planes showing we don't contribute to the congestion the airlines are complaining about.
 
Ron Levy said:
One point that should be acknowledged is that on a percentage of use versus percentage of payments basis, the air carriers do pay more than light GA.... Etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ron for the insight. Well worth the post. Something I always knew deep down, but had trouble putting into words. Really can't remember the last time I flew my plane into a Class B airport. I fact I haven't, because of the trouble and cost associated with doing that.
 
EdFred said:
So take those toes and give your higher ups a kick of reality in the teeth. :yes: :yes: :yes:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most airline managements pay as little attention to their flight crews as they do to their customers (beyond the typical customer's preference for absurdly low airfares above all else).
 
lancefisher said:
Unfortunately most airline managements pay as little attention to their flight crews as they do to their customers (beyond the typical customer's preference for absurdly low airfares above all else).
Click to expand...

More succinctly, **** rolls down hill.
 
NC Pilot said:
Really can't remember the last time I flew my plane into a Class B airport. I fact I haven't, because of the trouble and cost associated with doing that.
Click to expand...
Better evidence for the disastrous effect of User Fees couldn't be presented.
 
KennyFlys said:
Blakey has made statements about the coming VLJ saturation that will put a heavier load on ATC. I can't picture that being an issue. It seems most who would buy a VLJ for personal use or even charter are most likely already using King Airs and the like; flying in the flight levels.
Click to expand...
If the VLJ saturation comes, it will be a significant expansion, not a replacement. DayJet and the others like it are new entrants trying to develop a new market segment by offering personal air transportation to the public at regular coach fare prices -- something that doesn't currently exist. If that happens, they'll probably be grabbing the upper end of the coach fare trade, which is one of the air carriers' most profitable segments, but won't significantly reduce the number of airliners flying.

In terms of ATC impact, stealing four pax off a 737 isn't going to cancel the flight, but it does cost the airline a couple of thousand in revenue without reducing the cost of the flight, and it adds one more jet in the air. For that reason, I can understand the air carriers' concern over the potential of the VLJ to affect on both their revenue and demand on ATC. However, it is also likely that the VLJ's will be using reliever airports, not the big airline ones. All in all, it remains to be seen whether those VLJ aerial taxis are really going to be as ubiquitous in the National Airspace System as yellow cabs are in NYC streets, and whether they will be competing for the same airports/airspace as the air carriers.
 
JohnR said:
Better evidence for the disastrous effect of User Fees couldn't be presented.
Click to expand...

Ah but see, it's only disastrous to us. If the airlines get rid of all the other planes in the air, and believe me, that IS what they want. Then everyone has to use them. Remember, every time we fly, the airlines miss out on income. They may BS us about "oh no, we don't mean you." But a Cessna 172 is as much a thorn in their side as a G-V.
 
EdFred said:
Ah but see, it's only disastrous to us. If the airlines get rid of all the other planes in the air, and believe me, that IS what they want. Then everyone has to use them. Remember, every time we fly, the airlines miss out on income. They may BS us about "oh no, we don't mean you." But a Cessna 172 is as much a thorn in their side as a G-V.
Click to expand...

And given my 'love' for airlines, I'm happy to cause them as much pain as I can. Greg's airline at least offers E+, so I can get reasonable (but not great unless I'm in an exit row) legroom. Not an option on most others. They could go out of business tomorrow and I wouldn't miss them. But, like Scott, I travel too much. And my GA flights (with the exception of the company shuttles) don't cost the airlines anything, because they don't replace airline flights. They replace drives.
 
Ghery said:
And my GA flights (with the exception of the company shuttles) don't cost the airlines anything, because they don't replace airline flights. They replace drives.
Click to expand...
For the most part, that is true for me to. RDU area to PHF area replaces a drive, RDU area to Johnston, PA or Dooooothan, Al replaces a two leg plane flight and a long drive.

Always glad to replace airline flights with 182RG flights instead when able to do so economically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top