Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
new infrastructure plan
Author Message
49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 13,063
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 987
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #21
RE: new infrastructure plan
(01-31-2018 10:58 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 10:03 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 11:57 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think a gas tax hike is probably needed as well.

What I would like to see is something to reverse the mega-hub practice in the passenger airline industry. I have absolutely no idea how to accomplish that from a regulatory standpoint. However, we are becoming weaker as a nation and economy due to this practice.

Decades ago we had many more airline hubs. This gave us bigger, better equipped airports at many more locations around the country. As we stand now, the bulk of the industries technical and mechanical expertise is being concentrated into fewer and fewer locations. This is bad for growth and bad for the dissemination of technical capacity across the country.

From a national defense standpoint, we are now at the point where striking ten or fewer selected airports could effectively shutdown passenger air travel across the country.

I'd like to see municipal airports roar back to life and flying become tolerable again.

Trump was right, some of us Americans are dreamers. I dream of comfortable direct flights.

What's interesting about airlines is how the scheduling model varies across the major carriers; most of them like United and American use the hub and spoke system as you note, in which flights arrive and leave hub airports all around the same time like a movie theater where everything starts within an hour of each other but is dead for an hour and a half in between. Middle-tier flights from the likes of Southwest (who I almost always fly with) and JetBlue use a lot of focus cities and keep flights coming and going at a pretty regular frequency, making them a lot less susceptible to delays at major airports. They're keeping a lot of airports (like St. Louis) from really falling off just because their P&L often can't stomach the landing fees somewhere like O'Hare so they use Midway instead.

Southwest also engages in a hub and spoke model for a number of their flights. From where I live, you can't fly to St. Louis direct anymore (change planes at Midway). Midway is pretty much a hub for a large percentage of the flights Southwest has anymore. I haven't had to fly much within the past year, but Delta seems to have really stepped it up and IMHO is better than Southwest in efficiency on a number of flights that I noticed between 1 to 2 years ago.

With the advent of smaller but longer ranged planes like the Dreamliner and 737 Max, There should be an increase in direct flight from smaller airports in the future.



02-01-2018 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,898
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1225
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #22
RE: new infrastructure plan
(02-01-2018 08:25 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 10:58 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 10:03 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 11:57 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think a gas tax hike is probably needed as well.

What I would like to see is something to reverse the mega-hub practice in the passenger airline industry. I have absolutely no idea how to accomplish that from a regulatory standpoint. However, we are becoming weaker as a nation and economy due to this practice.

Decades ago we had many more airline hubs. This gave us bigger, better equipped airports at many more locations around the country. As we stand now, the bulk of the industries technical and mechanical expertise is being concentrated into fewer and fewer locations. This is bad for growth and bad for the dissemination of technical capacity across the country.

From a national defense standpoint, we are now at the point where striking ten or fewer selected airports could effectively shutdown passenger air travel across the country.

I'd like to see municipal airports roar back to life and flying become tolerable again.

Trump was right, some of us Americans are dreamers. I dream of comfortable direct flights.

What's interesting about airlines is how the scheduling model varies across the major carriers; most of them like United and American use the hub and spoke system as you note, in which flights arrive and leave hub airports all around the same time like a movie theater where everything starts within an hour of each other but is dead for an hour and a half in between. Middle-tier flights from the likes of Southwest (who I almost always fly with) and JetBlue use a lot of focus cities and keep flights coming and going at a pretty regular frequency, making them a lot less susceptible to delays at major airports. They're keeping a lot of airports (like St. Louis) from really falling off just because their P&L often can't stomach the landing fees somewhere like O'Hare so they use Midway instead.

Southwest also engages in a hub and spoke model for a number of their flights. From where I live, you can't fly to St. Louis direct anymore (change planes at Midway). Midway is pretty much a hub for a large percentage of the flights Southwest has anymore. I haven't had to fly much within the past year, but Delta seems to have really stepped it up and IMHO is better than Southwest in efficiency on a number of flights that I noticed between 1 to 2 years ago.

With the advent of smaller but longer ranged planes like the Dreamliner and 737 Max, There should be an increase in direct flight from smaller airports in the future.




Thanks. Enjoyed that immensely.
02-01-2018 06:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 25,267
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 1358
I Root For: Brandon
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #23
RE: new infrastructure plan
(01-21-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Arkansas did a study on tolls and only came up with a couple miles that would be profitable.
One of these outfits came in wanting to build the I-49 corridor in Arkansas as a toll. This is a very expensive corridor to build. To get I-540 (which runs parallel for about 75 miles) the Feds had to do 95-5 funding because Arkansas flat couldn't swing the cost of the tunnels, bridges and excavation required to build in the Ozarks.

Governor and Attorney General looked it over and it was pretty obvious they planned to get the state on the hook for a lot of the debt. They had one subsidiary that would do briding and another would excavation and another the paving and another would own and operate and own the debt. It was a sucker deal and the operating subsidiary was going to file bankruptcy to get out from under the debt and if they were so inclined another related company probably would come in and bid on the operating rights in bankruptcy.

Like what I learned about lignite gasification. There is a company that was getting press about it when oil was so high. I talked to a mining regulator about it because Arkansas has a lot of lignite. He said the article I read had left out that the company doing it had bought the plant out of bankruptcy for a nickel on the dollar. He said if you figure out how to make a billion-dollar plant for $50 million you'll have it made.

Strictly speaking selfishly, the last thing the Ozarks needs is an interstate. An interstate brings more people. No thanks.
02-02-2018 01:27 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #24
RE: new infrastructure plan
(02-02-2018 01:27 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(01-21-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Arkansas did a study on tolls and only came up with a couple miles that would be profitable.
One of these outfits came in wanting to build the I-49 corridor in Arkansas as a toll. This is a very expensive corridor to build. To get I-540 (which runs parallel for about 75 miles) the Feds had to do 95-5 funding because Arkansas flat couldn't swing the cost of the tunnels, bridges and excavation required to build in the Ozarks.

Governor and Attorney General looked it over and it was pretty obvious they planned to get the state on the hook for a lot of the debt. They had one subsidiary that would do briding and another would excavation and another the paving and another would own and operate and own the debt. It was a sucker deal and the operating subsidiary was going to file bankruptcy to get out from under the debt and if they were so inclined another related company probably would come in and bid on the operating rights in bankruptcy.

Like what I learned about lignite gasification. There is a company that was getting press about it when oil was so high. I talked to a mining regulator about it because Arkansas has a lot of lignite. He said the article I read had left out that the company doing it had bought the plant out of bankruptcy for a nickel on the dollar. He said if you figure out how to make a billion-dollar plant for $50 million you'll have it made.

Strictly speaking selfishly, the last thing the Ozarks needs is an interstate. An interstate brings more people. No thanks.

Tyson, Wal-Mart and Jones Trucking needed it. Really end of discussion if you know what I mean.
02-02-2018 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: new infrastructure plan
(02-02-2018 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:27 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(01-21-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Arkansas did a study on tolls and only came up with a couple miles that would be profitable.
One of these outfits came in wanting to build the I-49 corridor in Arkansas as a toll. This is a very expensive corridor to build. To get I-540 (which runs parallel for about 75 miles) the Feds had to do 95-5 funding because Arkansas flat couldn't swing the cost of the tunnels, bridges and excavation required to build in the Ozarks.

Governor and Attorney General looked it over and it was pretty obvious they planned to get the state on the hook for a lot of the debt. They had one subsidiary that would do briding and another would excavation and another the paving and another would own and operate and own the debt. It was a sucker deal and the operating subsidiary was going to file bankruptcy to get out from under the debt and if they were so inclined another related company probably would come in and bid on the operating rights in bankruptcy.

Like what I learned about lignite gasification. There is a company that was getting press about it when oil was so high. I talked to a mining regulator about it because Arkansas has a lot of lignite. He said the article I read had left out that the company doing it had bought the plant out of bankruptcy for a nickel on the dollar. He said if you figure out how to make a billion-dollar plant for $50 million you'll have it made.

Strictly speaking selfishly, the last thing the Ozarks needs is an interstate. An interstate brings more people. No thanks.

Tyson, Wal-Mart and Jones Trucking needed it. Really end of discussion if you know what I mean.

Arkansas really wants to complete I-49.
02-02-2018 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #26
RE: new infrastructure plan
(01-24-2018 08:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am a big supporter of infrastructure projects as part of gov't policy. Obama's presidency would have been seen more favorably by all if he would have focused much more efforts on developing and delivering on huge infrastructure projects as stimulus instead of bailing out municipal gov'ts and working on healthcare.

IMHO, the building of the interstate system was probably the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century for economic benefit. Without it, the mobility we gained from the invention of the car and truck would be not nearly as great. The commerce gains from transportation was huge. To this day, we are still benefiting greatly.

Whether people like them or not, Walmart's success in large part is related to the interstate system. Amazon wouldn't be viable but for the transportation infrastructure.

While I'm not one of those who buys the idea that health insurance is an unenumerated 9th Amendment right, I do think we should look at it as an infrastructure issue.

Health costs inflate the cost of property and casualty insurance, workers comp, malpractice (since part of the claim is for corrective treatment), as well as inflating labor costs.

I fail to see how health insurance can be equated to an infrastructure project. If you're going for an analogy, the interstate highway system is more like people than health insurance. The interstates allow for the creation of wealth thru commerce. People allow for the creation of wealth thru labor and innovation. Healthcare insurance is more like a contract bid to maintain the interstates. Actual healthcare is like the maintenance departments maintaining the interstate systems.

Healthcare and road maintenance does not create wealth in an economic sense. Both activities are designed to preserve what already exists primarily, and in some cases provide incremental improvements. Road maintenance is an operational necessity though. If you want to argue that healthcare should be viewed as an operational necessity, then a compelling case could be made.

XACLY! healthcare to the urbanites relative to country is meaningless in scope other than a subsidized burden...

maintaining our infrastructure is critical mass relative to everything relative to the USD....

pick your poison......I choose investing in funding the I-xx system every single day and the eighth one.....

#IKE
02-04-2018 02:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: new infrastructure plan
(02-04-2018 02:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-24-2018 08:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am a big supporter of infrastructure projects as part of gov't policy. Obama's presidency would have been seen more favorably by all if he would have focused much more efforts on developing and delivering on huge infrastructure projects as stimulus instead of bailing out municipal gov'ts and working on healthcare.

IMHO, the building of the interstate system was probably the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century for economic benefit. Without it, the mobility we gained from the invention of the car and truck would be not nearly as great. The commerce gains from transportation was huge. To this day, we are still benefiting greatly.

Whether people like them or not, Walmart's success in large part is related to the interstate system. Amazon wouldn't be viable but for the transportation infrastructure.

While I'm not one of those who buys the idea that health insurance is an unenumerated 9th Amendment right, I do think we should look at it as an infrastructure issue.

Health costs inflate the cost of property and casualty insurance, workers comp, malpractice (since part of the claim is for corrective treatment), as well as inflating labor costs.

I fail to see how health insurance can be equated to an infrastructure project. If you're going for an analogy, the interstate highway system is more like people than health insurance. The interstates allow for the creation of wealth thru commerce. People allow for the creation of wealth thru labor and innovation. Healthcare insurance is more like a contract bid to maintain the interstates. Actual healthcare is like the maintenance departments maintaining the interstate systems.

Healthcare and road maintenance does not create wealth in an economic sense. Both activities are designed to preserve what already exists primarily, and in some cases provide incremental improvements. Road maintenance is an operational necessity though. If you want to argue that healthcare should be viewed as an operational necessity, then a compelling case could be made.

XACLY! healthcare to the urbanites relative to country is meaningless in scope other than a subsidized burden...

maintaining our infrastructure is critical mass relative to everything relative to the USD....

pick your poison......I choose investing in funding the I-xx system every single day and the eighth one.....

#IKE

Building roads for urbanites was not a significant development. They had already seen them built and toll roads in corridors between urban areas were the norm, there was more than adequate consumer demand to get toll roads built, many purely private. Most urban areas were more than adequately served by rail that often was built without government subsidy. Many urban areas were more than adequately served by private development of ports along the oceans, rivers, canals and the Great Lakes.

Government subsidized long rail lines, government subsidized making previously non-navigable waters navigable, subsidized ports and canals into areas where there was no sufficient consumer demand. Government subsidized highway building.

Electricity was not a concern for urban populations. The demand and high population density made it easy to privately develop electric grids in urban areas. It was rural America that need subsidies to become electrified and make it possible to upgrade manufacturing.

All those government subsidizations cut overhead. Goods moved faster and more cheaply and opened up new labor markets.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average American employer spent 7.5% of labor costs on health insurance not including workers compensation health benefits. That also fails to account for the business owners higher property and casualty insurance costs related to having to provide medical coverage as a part of those costs.

Cutting transportation costs, providing reliable energy at below free market cost by covering the costs of some generation of electricity and installing grid all had a positive impact on the US economy but there is some magical reason that cutting the cost of labor by reducing medical outlays won't be positive for the economy? Making US labor costs more competitive on a national stage is a bad thing?
02-04-2018 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.