Well perhaps they do - but then they are not being offered the real choice here. That would be on time ops vs. a myriad of city pairs. Clearly what consumers don't understand is the trade off they face. On the one hand you have airports that want more (always more) flights because they get paid fees for each landing. The airlines want more (always much more) because they want to slice traffic into the smallest of slices. This would be great if the sky were able to grow and handle all this.
But not only is the sky limited, the people who run the lanes in the sky to keep planes safely far from each other are finite. We concur with the FAA that the NYC sky is now too full. However the airlines and airports have a point too, the FAA is not fixing its traffic flow abilities. How many decades have they been through trying to get their equipment current? Its a royal mess.
So while its fine to yell at the FAA and probably Congress too, the sky is still not expanding. Until there is a disaster in the sky over NYC the bickering will continue. Even then, this being America, a disaster will lead to finger pointing.
The problem with democracy is that you get the government you deserve not the government you want.
In other news --
- Top Ten fighters
- Zoom done for
- F-35 competition mounts
- Aer Lingus - what next? (MOL in the wings)
- Lufthansa strikes with Brussels move
Subscribe to analysis and opinion behind these headlines at Blackprogram




