Airlines Blame GA for Holiday Flight Delays

[Clip4]

So last night I did night currency work. I hadn't flown at night in many months (I resisted the urge to say since last year) and wanted a second pilot, so I paid a friend who is a CFI to go along with me in the right seat while I flew off some landings. I have also hired friends who are commercial rated to fly as safety pilots for me to do practice approaches. By definition, I hired a commercial pilot. Were we no longer general aviation in these circumstances?

As the airspace becomes more crowded, passing more of expenses of the system to the ticket purchasing public and the general tax payer is not sustainable.

You flying a night training flight with a CFI in Class E isn’t the issue. High speed aircraft is the busiest airspace is and the airlines are doing their due diligence in pointing out their paying their customers are paying the majority of the taxes and being delayed by flights that are paying considerable less. It really makes no difference if a plane has 1 passenger or 500. ATC has apply the same separation.

The per gallon jet fuel tax is less than $200 on a typical business jet flight vs what the airline customers are paying.

 

[Katamarino]

I had an earlier post in the thread about how we need to decide if the point of life is to exist or if the point of life is to live it. I think there is a happy medium but I'm firmly against removing someone's agency because it's good for them.

I see your points. And I sympathise, but do think that AVs should be available to anyone who wants one (i.e. let's not take people's choices away in the other direction, either). I'd love a car that I can switch on to automatic and relax for long tedious trips, or in traffic.

 

[MattCW]

Wasn't the next generation of air traffic management systems supposed to fix a lot of this? Like ADS-B. Wasn't that supposed to allow tighter operations?

 

[LoLPilot]

I see your points. And I sympathise, but do think that AVs should be available to anyone who wants one (i.e. let's not take people's choices away in the other direction, either). I'd love a car that I can switch on to automatic and relax for long tedious trips, or in traffic.

Oh I think that they should be available. Please don't infer that I want to halt their development. I just think we need to look beyond "safety and efficiency," when we make sweeping decisions about things. I absolutely do not think that they should be mandated.

@Clip4 I should have clarified - we were at a Class D reliever airport with two active flight schools and a fair amount of business jet traffic. We were talking to a tower controller the whole and sharing the pattern with several airplanes. Some were transient and some were doing the same thing we were doing. I think that's the issue for me. I don't necessarily disagree with you about the corporate aviation aspect but at the same time I think there is still something to be said about differences between scheduled air carrier operations and someone like a corporation who wants to fly their execs to a meeting on the corporate jet, or someone who has their own airplane and 'flying chauffeur,' flying themselves on a trip.

 

[Bob Noel]

I see your points. And I sympathise, but do think that AVs should be available to anyone who wants one (i.e. let's not take people's choices away in the other direction, either). I'd love a car that I can switch on to automatic and relax for long tedious trips, or in traffic.

cue any of the driving scenes from iRobot. ;-)

 

[LoLPilot]

cue any of the driving scenes from iRobot. ;-)

For sure!

 

[Ed Haywood]

I'd love a car that I can switch on to automatic and relax for long tedious trips, or in traffic.

Plenty of those available now. Tesla autopilot is excellent in stop-and-go traffic. The nagware is annoying on long trips though.

 

[Albany Tom]

First, I don't understand how we allow corporations to have lobbying groups. It's certainly not good for the public, or the government. If individual airlines want to make disparaging statements, which is also questionable to me as freedom of speech is an individual, not corporate, right, then let them do so. Don't hide behind the shield of a lobbying group. Lobbying groups, and lobbyists, are bad enough when they're supported by citizens.

Second, blaming external groups for your own problems is historically an indication of deeper internal problems.

Overall, it seems like an organized attempt to subvert government process in order to avoid paying civil penalties and increase revenue.

 

[Ed Haywood]

The right to petition the government is meaningless without the ability to join together with others to pursue a common cause. One individual can accomplish nothing by themselves. If you want to differentiate organizations by purpose, that is a different discussion, but claiming speech applies only to individuals is facile.

 

[Palmpilot]

...claiming speech applies only to individuals is facile.

I think that claim has also been ruled against by the Supreme Court.

 

[Albany Tom]

I'll buy that a collection of individuals can speak to their collective or even individual concerns, in the general sense*, but to artificially hand out the rights of a person to an artificial construct (corporation) makes no sense to me. A corporation has no fear, has no dreams, has no soul. They're a convenience to serve a purpose. A corporations comes to existence by the stroke of a pen, and we need to remember that it's continuation is just as fragile. When they're no longer convenient, they need to go. A lobbying group for corporations? That's convenient to no one.

*Even groups of individuals can come together to support causes that aren't just, or aren't legal, and I do believe that those groups don't or shouldn't be protected by the individual right of free speech. I'm positive that not everyone agrees with that, and I'll agree it could be more than a little slippery slope without posting examples.

 

[Albany Tom]

That claim has also been ruled against by the Supreme Court.

Understood, but that doesn't mean it was correct. They once more or less ruled that a person sometimes isn't a person, too...and that's relevant in this instance, as they've ruled that something that clearly isn't a person is a person. But rights are what we hold them to be, more than what they're written out to be. Corporate rights are not self-evident.

 

[Ed Haywood]

*Even groups of individuals can come together to support causes that aren't just, or aren't legal, and I do believe that those groups don't or shouldn't be protected by the individual right of free speech.

Then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Fortunately, others do.

The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent The Free Speech Rights Of Nazis | ACLU

In 1977, the ACLU of Illinois received a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. The ensuing legal battle, and the controversy around it, would test the organization’s commitment to the First Amendment.

www.aclu.org

 

[LoLPilot]

Then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Fortunately, others do.

The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent The Free Speech Rights Of Nazis | ACLU

In 1977, the ACLU of Illinois received a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. The ensuing legal battle, and the controversy around it, would test the organization’s commitment to the First Amendment.

www.aclu.org

I see what Tom is getting at, though. I consider myself a free speech near-absolutist. I make exceptions for things like slander and threats (basically 1A), and I am wary of granting a business entity things like lobbying rights. I argue that there is a difference between a group of people banding together through something like an organization (AOPA and EAA, anyone?) to make their voices heard, and a single business entity (for profit or NFP) being granted the same rights as a group of people because of the associated risk of cronyism. Since I asked earlier where someone would draw the line, I would draw the line at whether or not the organization is primarily an advocacy organization for some citizens' interest or if the entity is primarily engaged in providing a product or service to consumers.

 

[Mahneuvers]

...I argue that there is a difference between a group of people...and a single business entity...

That's the crux of the issue. I'd rather error on the side of free speech for everyone/everything. Otherwise politics is injected and, for example, corporations find themselves w/o free speech rights yet unions are protected.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I see what Tom is getting at, though. I consider myself a free speech near-absolutist. I make exceptions for things like slander and threats (basically 1A), and I am wary of granting a business entity things like lobbying rights. I argue that there is a difference between a group of people banding together through something like an organization (AOPA and EAA, anyone?) to make their voices heard, and a single business entity (for profit or NFP) being granted the same rights as a group of people because of the associated risk of cronyism. Since I asked earlier where someone would draw the line, I would draw the line at whether or not the organization is primarily an advocacy organization for some citizens' interest or if the entity is primarily engaged in providing a product or service to consumers.

Roger, but that is a different discussion from whether free speech depends on being just or good. Once you make free speech conditional on content, then you're not really free, because anything you say can be deemed harmful if it challenges existing authority. Play #1 in the autocratic playbook is declaring the opposition to be engaged in dangerous speech that undermines social unity and must be suppressed. That is exactly how Putin uses the law to jail opponents like Navalny. And how the CCP justifies the Great Firewall of China.

There is a reason the first amendment is #1. There is also a reason it includes the rights of free press, assembly, and petitioning the government. The authors of the Bill of Rights understood that freedom of speech and freedom of political action are inseparable, and that freedom of political action inherently includes the right to join with others to do so.

 

[Half Fast]

Play #1 in the autocratic playbook is declaring the opposition to be engaged in dangerous speech that undermines social unity and must be suppressed.

Would this include speech that the government deems to be “misinformation” that differs from “scientific consensus?”

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

... I can't believe that part of that is not also due to the fact that you are hardly alone in your assessment that you would not want to ride in something that wasn't operated by a person who had family / a pet / hobbies / a favorite TV show / some other reason to entice them to want to go home from work safely.

Passengers on SilkAir 185, Egypt Air 990, Mozambique 470, Malaysia Air 370, Germanwings 9525, Alaska Airlines 2059 and others meekly raise their hands...

 

[Palmpilot]

Would this include speech that the government deems to be “misinformation” that differs from “scientific consensus?”

It depends on whether the officials involved are punishing the disapproved speech, or just advocating against it. Government officials have free speech rights too.

 

[LoLPilot]

That's the crux of the issue. I'd rather error on the side of free speech for everyone/everything. Otherwise politics is injected and, for example, corporations find themselves w/o free speech rights yet unions are protected.

Roger, but that is a different discussion from whether free speech depends on being just or good. Once you make free speech conditional on content, then you're not really free, because anything you say can be deemed harmful if it challenges existing authority. Play #1 in the autocratic playbook is declaring the opposition to be engaged in dangerous speech that undermines social unity and must be suppressed. That is exactly how Putin uses the law to jail opponents like Navalny. And how the CCP justifies the Great Firewall of China.

There is a reason the first amendment is #1. There is also a reason it includes the rights of free press, assembly, and petitioning the government. The authors of the Bill of Rights understood that freedom of speech and freedom of political action are inseparable, and that freedom of political action inherently includes the right to join with others to do so.

I agree, and I tend to lean towards the side of being a free speech absolutist because of this, as I am a near-absolutist of all of the first 10A. I think unions get a bit hairy because many unions exhibit a certain degree of political cronyism, and I irk at things like Meta begging for Internet and Social Media regulations. That is almost certainly because they want expensive barriers to entry to limit competition, as they could afford to deal with those regulatory barriers.

Passengers on SilkAir 185, Egypt Air 990, Mozambique 470, Malaysia Air 370, Germanwings 9525, Alaska Airlines 2059 and others meekly raise their hands...

And they share their raised hands with every aircraft brought down via malicious action by another passenger or actor on the ground. Passengers on Eastwind 517, Northwest 85, US 1549, and survivors of United 232 are glad they had people up front who fought to the bitter end, sometimes doing unconventional things to try and save themselves and their passengers.

 

[Albany Tom]

Then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Fortunately, others do.

The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent The Free Speech Rights Of Nazis | ACLU

In 1977, the ACLU of Illinois received a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. The ensuing legal battle, and the controversy around it, would test the organization’s commitment to the First Amendment.

www.aclu.org

I do, but not without caveats. The brown shirt guys are specifically what I was getting at not getting at. My thought about them, and anyone else that is promoting violence, is that individuals should be able to speak about whatever dark stuff is in their heads. But the moment they form a group together, with the purpose of talking about violence, then I do think that the speech of that group should be fair game to limit. And I get why others think even they should be able to speak freely. The very rights that permitted the formation of our country are the ones that could be used to harm it. And this isn't theoretical, the same rules that could affect hate groups could easily be applied to civil rights groups.

And perhaps lobbying and funding should be the deciding factor. I don't know. I do know that I don't love that insurance companies, drug companies, airlines, have the ability to put groups together to collect corporate money and turn it into votes.

Trying to end on a lighter note? The difference between a hate group and an airline lobbying group? The hate group probably has some sort of code of ethics that they try to adhere to, as twisted as it may be. For the lobbying group, it's just about the money. Along the lines of MLK writing that he more or less had greater respect for the people that hated him for who he was, than those who claimed to agree with him and did nothing about it.

 

[iamtheari]

This article says that commercial flight delays are mostly due to weather and that last year’s bad numbers were mostly because of the Southwest (computer) meltdown. Which we all know, of course.

DOT reveals reason for vast majority of flight delays

Popular SFO airline scales back routes to Hawaii, LA and NYC; popular credit card for miles sneakily restricts airport lounge access.

www.sfgate.com

 

[donjohnston]

We were on a Delta flight from ATL to Cozumel yesterday that was delayed about 30 minutes due to “congestion over North Florida” (according to the pilot’s announcement). I pulled up ADSB Exchange and it didn’t look any different than it usually does. I wonder if it’s a staffing issue rather than increased volume.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

We were on a Delta flight from ATL to Cozumel yesterday that was delayed about 30 minutes due to “congestion over North Florida” (according to the pilot’s announcement). I pulled up ADSB Exchange and it didn’t look any different than it usually does. I wonder if it’s a staffing issue rather than increased volume.

It's absolutely a ZJX staffing issue. They're not staffed on a good day, so throw in some weather and forget it.

 

[hindsight2020]

What's the genesis of the staffing problem? Pay not matching cost of living? OPM/federal hiring being the sclerotic furball it always has been? Undesirable location?

 

[Palmpilot]

As I said above, I wouldn't want to ride in a jet that didn't have a human pilot (or two) up front. Studies of consumer preference found that most people wanted a person driving the bus, operating the subway, etc. I have a feeling that most people feel better knowing that in the front of every train there is a conductor and an engineer who have people or things that they want to go home to.

 

[iRyan]

During the past month with the terrible storms in the NE, several times the a/p on new transport keys couldn't handle the wx that was within a/c limits. These were faulty new a/c and the auto thrust, loc and g/s were unable to do their job. It took both of us to compete the landing. I don't see single or zero pilot ops in the future.

 

[Hang 4]

What's the genesis of the staffing problem? Pay not matching cost of living? OPM/federal hiring being the sclerotic furball it always has been? Undesirable location?

I don't know the answer, but I can say that JAX was great prior to the pandemic. I used to purposely wait to get FF once I crossed into their area from DAB. They went to ATC Zero at least once during the height of the craziness. Since then, it's noticeably understaffed. Controllers working multiple sectors with a lot of traffic, practice approaches being refused etc. Some of the better controllers seem to be gone, "Aloha guy" most notably.

Can't imagine cost of living or location being an issue. No income tax, ocean nearby and plenty of places to live with lower costs, though as is true for all of FL, going up.

 

[midwestpa24]

What's the genesis of the staffing problem? Pay not matching cost of living? OPM/federal hiring being the sclerotic furball it always has been? Undesirable location?

I don't think staffing problems are unique to ATC. Nearly all industries in the US are facing this issue, as is being discussed in this thread.

 

[LoLPilot]

View attachment 124220

Hadn't seen that before but that's good!