Interested my airport days are somewhat dated now. So things have certainly changed a bit.

And that was in 1999, now with even better, faster and cheaper communication tools at hand there is a compelling argument to improve the bottom line by reducing corporate trips.

The Teamsters in fact had a beautiful Gulfstream that - at times - flew into my airport. (we were verboten to take any pictures of the tail number in case union members realized who owned it). As did Union Carbide, United Technologies, etc. The way it is rationalized is - you take what the CEO's time is worth (and his staff), and you remove that much time if they fly commercial. Now compare that to the cost of operating the private jet with the CEO's time still in working condition.

Creative financiers and risk takers will no doubt find a model whereby business travel can increasingly be channeled through small operators that operate light jets and who can offer their clients tailored flight plans.

I imagine it has increased since my days. Back then the quarter-share companies were growing gang-busters during the building boom of the late 80's/early 90's. here is a decent article (about 12 years old) that makes a good case. http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/11/24/freq.t_0.php

"In the States there are 5,000 jets owned by 3,500 companies or individuals. But there are more than 50,000 companies with annual sales of more than 25 million dollars. That's a lot of people out there who need to be on the move and in touch with far-flung operations, suppliers or customers. If you're going anywhere other than to the major hubs, you end up having to make connections. It's all about time."

Pat Pieter I know why all of this is happening! You see air traffic controllers are expensive people, hard to find and not nearly numerous enough for the current work loads! So, if you make getting on an airplane such a pain in the you know what, fewer people will fly. Following, there will be less need for those expensive hard to find controllers AND you've reduced the federal budget on top of all this because a TSA employee is a helluva lot cheaper than an Air Traffic Controller! N'est pas?

Jim Et Al My Orwell clock just ticked! Used to be that flying an airplane to another city was like taking a bus downtown, you paid your money and you got there reasonably on time. No more, but even worse you have to get permission from a government nanny? Having to ask nicely and fill out a fifteen page HS form will discourage more than a few erstwhile travelers. This development (if accepted) doesn't bode well for either the business or pleasure traveler... I disagree with Pieter's rationale of travelers moving from commercial jets into smaller "open source" private planes. It might be a good alternative at first, but it will only take a single private plane terrorist incident before Homeland Security discovers the need for additional monitoring and paperwork. It will be the air travelers' equivalent of "you're doing one hecka of a job Brownie."

Interested

This development (if accepted) doesn’t bode well for either the business or pleasure traveler…

I doubt it'd be accepted, but if it did - sure would be an economic incentive to develop high speed rail in the US.

but it will only take a single private plane terrorist incident before Homeland Security discovers the need for additional monitoring and paperwork.

I wouldn't jump to the assumption that private planes are not already on the - to watch for - list. As it is private pilots are heavily monitored (radar, transponders, flight plans) when approaching/encroaching into sensitive/restricted airspace.

It will be the air travelers’ equivalent of “you’re doing one hecka of a job Brownie.”

That makes no sense.

Jim Et Al Interested...Let me refresh your memory... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO2xi0uLnj8

wj Pat, Actually, going to lots of small airplanes will make the demand for air traffic controllers vastly larger. And, as you note, there aren't enough of them currently. So what is actually needed is to make it more easy and convenient to take the big planes. TSA may get away with their version of aversion therapy for a while longer. But eventually there are going to be a lot more airplane passengers who will vote for somebody, anybody, who will promise to make the pain get smaller. The current check-in only serves one purpose: it allows politicians to point to something visible and say "steps have been taken." For increasing safety - essentially worthless. So someone will come along who is clever enough to make that happen. And make political hay out of it for years. Speed the day!

Pat WJ, you point is well taken, but I was being sarcastic about the whole thing! It is an amazing mess for sure! I give you a personal story. I work with Doctors without Borders and have often traveled to Sudan (various parts including Dharfur, Bahr el Ghazel and the Nuba mountains) so while getting into and out of this hell, I usually am required to board a small aircraft (AeroCommander 690) and fly out of Lokichoggio in northern Kenya. Well, I get a passport stamp out of the country of Kenya, but since the areas I go into in Sudan are combat zones, there is no immigration when I land. You can only imagine the amount of splainin' I gotta do when I come back Stateside to back into MY COUNTRY! Jeez Louise!

Pat WJ, one more thing, I am a pilot as well, and as long as the aircraft being flown stays under 10,000 ft and out of Class A, B, C and D airspace there is no need to even communicate with ATC, especially if you are using a non-towered airport. I do it all the time. Oh yeah, gotta stay out of restricted areas too, like the areas around nuke plants and military bases, Washington D.C. and so on. So to the point that many small planes will require more AT controllers, I'm not so sure about that, a good example is the traffic into and out of the Nut Tree Airport here in Northern California, very crowded sky with no ATC, and no problems, well almost no problems till some idiot Doctor or Lawyer with a big ego tries to cut infront of everyone in the landing pattern.

Interested Jim

Interested…Let me refresh your memory…

Still makes no sense, unless of course you are just searching for a spot to inject a partisan statement? How does that statement have anything to do with private citizens taking care of their own air travel. Pat I usually am required to board a small aircraft (AeroCommander 690) Nice plane. Wasn't it Hoover that flew an Aero Commander during his stunts?

and no problems, well almost no problems till some idiot Doctor or Lawyer with a big ego tries to cut infront of everyone in the landing pattern.

I've known a few of those in my day, saved one of their butts from a gear up landing once.

Jim Et Al Interested

Still makes no sense, unless of course you are just searching for a spot to inject a partisan statement? How does that statement have anything to do with private citizens taking care of their own air travel.

One does not have to be a partisan to recognize the FEMA response to Katrina for what it was...a disaster! I suppose I could have used a number of other administration "highlights" to make my point, but this one seemed rather apropos. You didn't get it, so let me flesh it out a bit... The Bush administration has typically appointed its friends into important positions which is why a guy like "Brownie" was in charge of FEMA in the first place. In this administration. real world experience related to the task at hand counts little, while connection and partisanship count a lot. Is it then any wonder that FEMA failed post Katrina? Is it any wonder that airport security (how many years after 9/11?) means discarded hair gel vials, long frustrating lines, and possible strip searches for the everyday kind of passenger, while a very determined and cool headed individual who did a little research could just walk a bomb onto a flight. Would it be any wonder then to see a terrorist attack where airport security is the weakest, i.e. the private plane concourse? Now lastly, if such an incident did occur would it surprise you to find out that the federal guy in charge had no previous relevant experience but had instead worked for the Arabian Horse Association? Wouldn't you find that both a bit curious and...well... typical of this administration?

wj Pat, sorry about that. The sarcasm went right by me at midnight (having been up since well before dawn). But this morning it's obvious. Well done, actually. Sigh. I'd promise to avoid commenting when half asleep in future...except I know myself too well.

Interested

I suppose I could have used a number of other administration “highlights” to make my point, but this one seemed rather apropos.

No it didn't

The Bush administration has typically appointed its friends into important positions which is why a guy like “Brownie” was in charge of FEMA in the first place. In this administration. real world experience related to the task at hand counts little, while connection and partisanship count a lot.

And?

Would it be any wonder then to see a terrorist attack where airport security is the weakest, i.e. the private plane concourse? Now lastly, if such an incident did occur would it surprise you to find out that the federal guy in charge had no previous relevant experience but had instead worked for the Arabian Horse Association?

Finally you put one and fifty together into the same thought process, ignoring the entire bit on local & state failings in Katrina too. And I guess overlook that this administration's timeframe is running out pretty darn fast and a post like that would be subject to a Democrat oversight.

Would it be any wonder then to see a terrorist attack where airport security is the weakest, i

Did you expect terrorists would attack the heaviest level of security areas or something?

Pat Interested, Yeah, I think Hoover did fly a 690 in his airshows for awhile! Just a note of weird trivia about the 690 I was using, it was the former Air Force One for the former President of Tanzania (with the bar and bed stripped out and stretcher points put in!) Great aircraft, and even though it was not meant to be used for bush work, it handled the work with no problems! I tried to get my boss to call Commander so they could it as an advertisement for how tough their aircraft are, but he said something like "Hell no! I don't want them to know what we're doing with it! It'll void any warranties we have!"

Pat Interested Hoover flew the earlier version of the 690, a 500 called the Shrike. I googled it out of interest!

Alan And as the frog (we) remains in the pot, the heat is turned up a little bit more ............. At just what point is the average person going to say "Enough!" already? Must we loose ALL of our privacy and freedom to travel for the sake of almost meaningless security theatre?

Alan And as the frog (we) remains in the pot, the heat is turned up a little bit more ............. At just what point is the average person going to say "Enough!" already? Must we loose ALL of our privacy and freedom to travel for the sake of almost meaningless security theatre?

Interested

but he said something like “Hell no! I don’t want them to know what we’re doing with it! It’ll void any warranties we have!”

lmao