From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 13-Nov-14 18:40, John Levine wrote:   
   >>> Interesting report.  But at some point the airlines are going to   
   >>> have to put large planes to work on the East Coast to carry   
   >>> future demand. Many small airplanes simply clog up the runways.   
   >>   
   >> The trend is toward smaller planes because they can just bribe   
   >> politicians to spend billions in taxpayers' money expanding   
   >> airports.   
   >   
   > Sheesh.  Not everything is a conspiracy.   
      
   It's not a conspiracy theory; it's documented fact.   
      
   Even SCOTUS said that bribes to politicians are protected by the First   
   Amendment--as long as you call them "campaign contributions".   
      
   > Airlines moved to smaller planes so they could have more frequent   
   > service, for the lucrative business travellers who are more time   
   > sensitive than price sensitive.   
      
   I haven't seen planes getting any smaller; what they _have_ done is   
   upgrade their turboprops to regional jets, and then expanded those   
   fleets to more cities and more frequent service.  A few minor cities may   
   have been downgraded from full-size jets to regional jets, but not as an   
   across-the-board move.   
      
   > Then fuel prices went up, and they noticed that the per passenger   
   > cost of flying small planes is awful, and they consolidated back   
   > into larger planes.  This year fuel prices are back down, so I expect   
   > we'll see smaller planes again.   
      
   Um, no.  They don't sell off part of their fleet every time the price of   
   oil goes up and buy it back when the price of oil goes down, and they   
   don't leave part of their fleet parked for years because they're paying   
   depreciation on those planes whether they're flying or not.   
      
   Oil prices may slightly alter their long-term fleet refresh plans, but   
   that affects 1/30th of their fleet per year on average.   
      
   > Bribing politicians to expand airports is at best a very long term   
   > investment,   
      
   A few million in bribes to get several billion in airport improvements   
   is a very good investment, even if it takes a few years.   
      
   > and in some areas useless.  No amount of bribery will cause new   
   > runways to be built at LGA or DCA.   
      
   If you think so, you're not bribing the right people or not spending   
   enough money.   
      
   > Fortunately, they are probably the two US airports with the largest   
   > amount of traffic that could plausibly move to rail.   
      
   Indeed, and that's one of the reasons why Amtrak's NEC service is one of   
   the biggest "airlines" in the country.  However, conservatives hate   
   Amtrak; they'd rather spend ten times as much money on airports that   
   benefit far fewer people.  After all, it's not _their_ money.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)