"Michael M. Butler" wrote:
>
> 2) Another approach would be to treat domestic heavies in such a way that
> they are not allowed to fuel up for (say) more than a 500-mile leg.
> No more coast-to-coast nonstops over land. This will have some
> significant costs, as they will be operating much less efficiently
> (climbing and descending) for most of their flight hours. Probably a
> nonstarter.
Better idea: since the security problem at airports is one of
saturation, eliminate all flights of less than 200 miles between major
cities, and of less than 500 miles along rail corridors, especially the
Boston/DC corridor. Route rail lines for new high speed trains like the
Acela to new stations located at major airports, so passengers can make
connections from train to plane and back.
This will eliminate a large amount of the 'shuttle' air service that
bogs down so much of our traffic system and overloads airport security
systems, while at the same time boosting rail ridership enough to allow
private capitalization of more Acela trains.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT