<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McCain Wants You to Be Able to Fly to Washington/National and New York/LaGuardia From Anywhere in the US</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:01:47 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-75023</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-75023</guid>
		<description>Jose - Not sure why you picked this post to rant, but this has nothing to do with pollution.  There is not change in the number of flights - it would simply allow them to fly to more destinations with the flights that are there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jose &#8211; Not sure why you picked this post to rant, but this has nothing to do with pollution.  There is not change in the number of flights &#8211; it would simply allow them to fly to more destinations with the flights that are there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jose</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-75019</link>
		<dc:creator>Jose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-75019</guid>
		<description>The intent of this bill is to spread the air pollution around.I would assume, as local government slowly realizes the pollution dumped on their locales ; are putting it on the DC Ghees to control it.The vested Aviation interests are prodding their agents to act....There is a ground swell of concern  over , not only the Jet engines contribution to global warming, but its consumption of great volumes of air  lowering the girdle of air that sustains us. The 21st century will bring teletravel-.CEOS will  not longer take jaunts at the expense the common stock holder,-And for those proposing bills, they are the collective Rodney Dangerfields of the &quot;American People&quot;...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The intent of this bill is to spread the air pollution around.I would assume, as local government slowly realizes the pollution dumped on their locales ; are putting it on the DC Ghees to control it.The vested Aviation interests are prodding their agents to act&#8230;.There is a ground swell of concern  over , not only the Jet engines contribution to global warming, but its consumption of great volumes of air  lowering the girdle of air that sustains us. The 21st century will bring teletravel-.CEOS will  not longer take jaunts at the expense the common stock holder,-And for those proposing bills, they are the collective Rodney Dangerfields of the &#8220;American People&#8221;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69685</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69685</guid>
		<description>sam - I&#039;m having trouble following your arguments.  Most importantly, the aircraft that were used to crash into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were not actually from National or LaGuardia.  They could have been from anywhere. 

Also, nobody is really arguing for different sized aircraft here.  I can&#039;t imagine a widebody being used on the transcontinental flights - we&#039;ll just see more of the same planes we see today with more fuel onboard.  Today&#039;s accident has absolutely nothing to do with fuel load.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sam &#8211; I&#8217;m having trouble following your arguments.  Most importantly, the aircraft that were used to crash into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were not actually from National or LaGuardia.  They could have been from anywhere. </p>
<p>Also, nobody is really arguing for different sized aircraft here.  I can&#8217;t imagine a widebody being used on the transcontinental flights &#8211; we&#8217;ll just see more of the same planes we see today with more fuel onboard.  Today&#8217;s accident has absolutely nothing to do with fuel load.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69679</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69679</guid>
		<description>Firstly I am thankful initial reports indicate all aboard have survived the USAirways incident in NYC today.

Sam&#039;s arguments do not, however.  The plane in question, a fully loaded A320 is smaller than the 757, the largest plane operating at DCA.  The fuel load to Charlotte is nowhere close to the requirement of a transcon flight, which that plane is capable of depending on the purchasing airline&#039;s requirements.

Third, initial reports of a bird strike in both engines mean deliberate sabotage was not a factor.  Praises to the pilot who successfully ditched in to the Hudson, on the other side of Manhattan and the East River from LGA.

A &quot;double-strike,&quot; while rare can bring down any plane of any size, as it did in this case.  The size of the plane or the length of the journey wasn&#039;t the issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firstly I am thankful initial reports indicate all aboard have survived the USAirways incident in NYC today.</p>
<p>Sam&#8217;s arguments do not, however.  The plane in question, a fully loaded A320 is smaller than the 757, the largest plane operating at DCA.  The fuel load to Charlotte is nowhere close to the requirement of a transcon flight, which that plane is capable of depending on the purchasing airline&#8217;s requirements.</p>
<p>Third, initial reports of a bird strike in both engines mean deliberate sabotage was not a factor.  Praises to the pilot who successfully ditched in to the Hudson, on the other side of Manhattan and the East River from LGA.</p>
<p>A &#8220;double-strike,&#8221; while rare can bring down any plane of any size, as it did in this case.  The size of the plane or the length of the journey wasn&#8217;t the issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69677</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69677</guid>
		<description>in light of the usair plane accident in lga today...I still disagree with those on this forum,  that believe this is not an issue. the world trade center was designed to have a 707 hit it and remain standing...we saw a 767 exceeded that limitation.  in the interest of safety and preserving the us capitol and other structures near DCA from total destruction I believe there should be a limit to size and range of acft arriving and departing DCA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in light of the usair plane accident in lga today&#8230;I still disagree with those on this forum,  that believe this is not an issue. the world trade center was designed to have a 707 hit it and remain standing&#8230;we saw a 767 exceeded that limitation.  in the interest of safety and preserving the us capitol and other structures near DCA from total destruction I believe there should be a limit to size and range of acft arriving and departing DCA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xnuiem</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69643</link>
		<dc:creator>Xnuiem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69643</guid>
		<description>Whoa...Sam. I know we are talking US here, but if we want to talk clear zones and terrifying approaches, do not go to the Caribbean.  Those runways end in coral reefs, beaches, slums, or hotels.  

As someone that lives closer to DFW and to DAL but flies WN (they actually get me home when AA likes to strand me places) I am glad to have a choice.  I live on the approach to AFW, I knew that when I moved here.  If a FedEx MD-11 or AA 777 takes out the neighborhood....There aren&#039;t a lot of people living around either DAL or MDW that predate the airport.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoa&#8230;Sam. I know we are talking US here, but if we want to talk clear zones and terrifying approaches, do not go to the Caribbean.  Those runways end in coral reefs, beaches, slums, or hotels.  </p>
<p>As someone that lives closer to DFW and to DAL but flies WN (they actually get me home when AA likes to strand me places) I am glad to have a choice.  I live on the approach to AFW, I knew that when I moved here.  If a FedEx MD-11 or AA 777 takes out the neighborhood&#8230;.There aren&#8217;t a lot of people living around either DAL or MDW that predate the airport.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69616</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69616</guid>
		<description>Sam - I do agree with you that LGA, DCA and airports like it, are the kinds of airports that make everyone clench up just a little tighter during approach and landing.  Sadly, though, politics and local economies mean those airports are destined to remain open for the sake of the jobs they create if not simply their convenience to the city they serve.

I have never heard of any effort to build a new SAN and close Lindbergh.  Same as in DC with Andrews AFB, the likelihood of Miramar becoming a commercial airport is slim to none.  Anyone at AA and UA both will tell you MDW and DAL should have been shut down long ago.  Politics, the clout of Southwest at both fields and even local sentiment, however, means those fields will be around for quite some time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam &#8211; I do agree with you that LGA, DCA and airports like it, are the kinds of airports that make everyone clench up just a little tighter during approach and landing.  Sadly, though, politics and local economies mean those airports are destined to remain open for the sake of the jobs they create if not simply their convenience to the city they serve.</p>
<p>I have never heard of any effort to build a new SAN and close Lindbergh.  Same as in DC with Andrews AFB, the likelihood of Miramar becoming a commercial airport is slim to none.  Anyone at AA and UA both will tell you MDW and DAL should have been shut down long ago.  Politics, the clout of Southwest at both fields and even local sentiment, however, means those fields will be around for quite some time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69615</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:08:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69615</guid>
		<description>Sam - I agree about having airports with &quot;run-off&quot; areas at the end of runways.  Sad fact is, too many fields in this country alone are surrounded by urban build-up:  DAL, MDW, SAN, DCA, LGA, EWR, even SFO.  Imagine one of those HKG bound 747s plowing in to the 101.  There are pictures, even, of a China Air 747 going off the end of the old Kai Tak at HKG, an airport with one of the most horrendous approaches on record.  Want something similar to that?  Try the right-angle approach to Funchal in the Madeira Islands of Portugal, also an airport known for widebodies from Europe.

In 1966 AA went to the plane makers wanting a widebody smaller than the 747 with medium to long haul range, could handle shorter runways, was quiet enough for local neighborhoods and leant itself to slot restrictions.  Any airport at the time was a no-brainer with the exception of DCA.  They meant and wanted LGA.

Engine technology of the day dictated a tri-jet until Airbus came along with the A300 nearly a decade later.  Boeing was busy with the 747 whose wingspan would never have worked.  Lockheed wanted to re-enter the passenger market and whipped up the L-1011.  Douglas didn&#039;t want to lose out and whipped up the DC-10.  AA and UA went Douglas, taking their first birds on the exact same day in a joint ceremony.  DL and EA went Lockheed and all four ran their fleets in to LGA where they stayed until the 757 and 767 combo gradually took them out.

I respectfully agree with Cranky in the assessment that less fuel simply means the aircraft won&#039;t burn as long.  It does not guarantee fewer victims.  Using EOW alone a 757 at 127,000 pounds and making 400 knots will do major damage regardless of the fuel load on board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam &#8211; I agree about having airports with &#8220;run-off&#8221; areas at the end of runways.  Sad fact is, too many fields in this country alone are surrounded by urban build-up:  DAL, MDW, SAN, DCA, LGA, EWR, even SFO.  Imagine one of those HKG bound 747s plowing in to the 101.  There are pictures, even, of a China Air 747 going off the end of the old Kai Tak at HKG, an airport with one of the most horrendous approaches on record.  Want something similar to that?  Try the right-angle approach to Funchal in the Madeira Islands of Portugal, also an airport known for widebodies from Europe.</p>
<p>In 1966 AA went to the plane makers wanting a widebody smaller than the 747 with medium to long haul range, could handle shorter runways, was quiet enough for local neighborhoods and leant itself to slot restrictions.  Any airport at the time was a no-brainer with the exception of DCA.  They meant and wanted LGA.</p>
<p>Engine technology of the day dictated a tri-jet until Airbus came along with the A300 nearly a decade later.  Boeing was busy with the 747 whose wingspan would never have worked.  Lockheed wanted to re-enter the passenger market and whipped up the L-1011.  Douglas didn&#8217;t want to lose out and whipped up the DC-10.  AA and UA went Douglas, taking their first birds on the exact same day in a joint ceremony.  DL and EA went Lockheed and all four ran their fleets in to LGA where they stayed until the 757 and 767 combo gradually took them out.</p>
<p>I respectfully agree with Cranky in the assessment that less fuel simply means the aircraft won&#8217;t burn as long.  It does not guarantee fewer victims.  Using EOW alone a 757 at 127,000 pounds and making 400 knots will do major damage regardless of the fuel load on board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69611</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69611</guid>
		<description>Traveling optimist: I agree with your comments, except for the part that says the DC-10 and L-1011 were designed with LGA in mind. My point is these 2 airports are dangerous...or let&#039;s say= less safe than, say denver or detroit...so  I think=when disaster does strike...is it not better to have a plane with less fuel and less size go off the end of a runway with NO CLEAR zones...like regular airports have?...midway also falls under this category...in fact midway was basically abandoned for years and years....in the 70&#039;s and early 80&#039;s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Traveling optimist: I agree with your comments, except for the part that says the DC-10 and L-1011 were designed with LGA in mind. My point is these 2 airports are dangerous&#8230;or let&#8217;s say= less safe than, say denver or detroit&#8230;so  I think=when disaster does strike&#8230;is it not better to have a plane with less fuel and less size go off the end of a runway with NO CLEAR zones&#8230;like regular airports have?&#8230;midway also falls under this category&#8230;in fact midway was basically abandoned for years and years&#8230;.in the 70&#8217;s and early 80&#8217;s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2009/01/12/mccain-wants-you-to-be-able-to-fly-to-washingtonnational-and-new-yorklaguardia-from-anywhere-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-69598</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1929#comment-69598</guid>
		<description>Sam - Widebodies have been flown in to both LGA and DCA.

Eastern successfully &quot;tested&quot; the A300 in to DCA but it was determined too much of a ramp hog to operate efficiently.

The DC-10 and L-1011 both were designed specifically with LGA in mind as a way to serve more people with fewer available slots.  They operated there nearly to the end of their commercial careers.  DL has operated the 767-300 in to LGA from ATL, an airplane almost as big as the first two.

May they rest in peace, the Air Florida crash was a wing-ice disaster; it had nothing to do with the size, weight or amount of fuel on the plane.

Finally, I have no problem in closing National for security and safety reasons but you&#039;ll have a huge fight on your hands if the government is required to find another airfield to replace Andrews.  I doubt quite seriously they will share the Air Force One field with civilian or commercial aviation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam &#8211; Widebodies have been flown in to both LGA and DCA.</p>
<p>Eastern successfully &#8220;tested&#8221; the A300 in to DCA but it was determined too much of a ramp hog to operate efficiently.</p>
<p>The DC-10 and L-1011 both were designed specifically with LGA in mind as a way to serve more people with fewer available slots.  They operated there nearly to the end of their commercial careers.  DL has operated the 767-300 in to LGA from ATL, an airplane almost as big as the first two.</p>
<p>May they rest in peace, the Air Florida crash was a wing-ice disaster; it had nothing to do with the size, weight or amount of fuel on the plane.</p>
<p>Finally, I have no problem in closing National for security and safety reasons but you&#8217;ll have a huge fight on your hands if the government is required to find another airfield to replace Andrews.  I doubt quite seriously they will share the Air Force One field with civilian or commercial aviation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
