Robert L. Crandall

This is a great question, which underscores the disconnect, common throughout society, of problems that impact a great many but have no focused constituency and problems that impact relatively few but have a closely focused constituency. The former problems tend to be ignored, while the latter get solved.

Traffic congestion is a fine illustration, as is food safety. Traffic congestion impacts almost everyone, wastes enormous amounts of energy and costs the economy vast amounts when measured by lost productive time. I think almost everyone cares deeply about food safety. But because there is no way for individual citizens to focus on how to reduce traffic congestion, and because the mechanics of how to assure food safety are not part of most people’s daily life, politicians ignore both.

These problems exist primarily because we have no integrated planning mechanism. Congress recently passed a major change to the food safety laws, which those in Congress opposed to regulation regard as overreaching. In the current climate, that has made it easy fo

Plane subsidies vs. buses – are you kidding?

This week’s question is one of the world’s true no brainers.

Yes, bus service will take a bit longer than a flight – but that’s before figuring into the math the time to get through TSA security and the time required to get to the airport early to be sure that today is not the day there is some crisis which will cause you to miss the plane.

The nation decided, back in 1978, that it prefers lower prices on most flights to supporting an integrated pattern of equivalent service under the terms of which long haul flights subsidiz underutilized short haul flights in the name of ubiquitous service. While the public’s opinion is quite clear, politicians have refused to recognize that judgment. Instead, they have raised all sorts of nonsensical arguments to the effect that service to small airports somehow essential to the American dream and have perpetuated subsidies for those services. The reality is that subsidies for service to small and remote airports is nothing

On September 30, unless Congress acts to extend it, the 18.4 cent Federal gasoline tax will expire. It’s hard to imagine an overt act more immediately damaging to our economy or more inconsistent with our long term economic needs.

The tax, which has not been raised since 1983, is clearly inadequate. In 2008, the Highway Trust fund – which is the fund intended to support transportation improvements in the U. S. – ran out of money. Spending from the Trust Fund has exceeded revenues since 2002. Although Congress has plugged the gap with revenues from the General fund, it has failed to come up with an integrated plan – and a funding program –to assure adequate maintenance of our existing assets and provide the improvements needed to assure competitive capabilities in the years ahead.

Allowing the gasoline tax to lapse would, among other things:

· Encourage people to drive more, thus worsening the already severe congestion that irritates us all – and costs more than $100 billion annually in extra fuel costs.

&mi

The FAA’s plight – and that of the 4,000 people now without incomes, as well as that of passengers and airlines inconvenienced and out of pocket due to the Congressional failure to act – is another commentary on the unhappy triumph of ideology over common sense.

Hopefully, everyone outside the beltway that understands the situation – and they are probably few, since there is little if any of either truth or explanation in press reports – knows that the reason FAA does not have the funds it needs to function has nothing whatever to do with the FAA and everything to do with ideological positions regarding unions and support for service to small communities.

The largest point of contention, apparently, is the recent decision by the National Mediation Board to change the way in which votes are counted in elections to determine whether a union should be certified. For decades prior to 2010, unions were required to get at least 50% of the total population to vote in favor of unionization; non-voters, were, in effect, counted as “no&

One hardly needs to be a transportation "expert" to understand this issue. The case for infrastructure maintenance -- and the taxes to sustain that maintenance -- is crystal clear.

Unhappily, our political structure is so broken that the issue attracts little if any attention except when a bridge in some city falls down, or a monumental traffic jam attracts the momentary attention of the media.

Many have observed -- with respect to deficit spending and other oddities of our time -- that what can't continue, won't. Unhappily, the deterioration in our infrastructure can continue, and likely will, until and unless some major player in the political process starts telling it like it is.

Would any serious person really object to an additional 10 cents a gallon tax on gasoline if the proceeds would assure appropriate maintenance and improvements to our highway system? Or argue that the net impact on the economy would be anything but positive? Can anyone seriously make a case that investing in an improved air space management system which would redu

I would urge him to spend 30 days traveling, without advising anyone he is doing so. Observe the TSA at work in big and small airports and take notes. That’s the only way to get a real sense of what the public sees and experiences.

Then I would urge him to sit down with key staff and ask:

(1) Why aren’t procedures identical at all locations? Why do some want to see boarding passes multiple times while others do not? Why haven’t we implemented a mandatory national standard procedure?

(2) Why aren’t we putting full body scan capability in every airport? What is the purpose of concentrating all the machines in big airports? Why can’t we publish an honest accounting of how long full body screening takes, rather than putting out numbers that are observably incorrect?

(3) Why haven’t we created a Trusted Traveler Program? Congress mandated, years ago, that those willing to undergo professional, in depth background screening and use biometric identifiers should be able to get thro

I’m not sure that it’s fair to posit that the airlines are victimizing anyone, or that consumers need "protection" from the airline industry.

The proposed rules are of two types. Some seek to be sure that consumers have an opportunity to get all relevant information before committing to a purchase. Others seek to alter the economics of industry practices in ways which may benefit some individuals but will likely increase costs for travelers overall.

It is hard to fault those who want businesses of all types, including airlines, to provide customers with complete information. Many businesses seem willing to be less than fully straightforward in advertisements and other public communications, and we would all be better off if every consumer understood all the terms and conditions, and the price, of each product or service before consummating a transaction.

Take cellular phone bills, for example. An offer of x minutes of use for y dollars generates a bill that is lots higher than the advertized price because of an astonishing array of taxes

Recently, Vaughn Cordle and two colleagues have written contesting my views on consolidation. In my view, they are wrong --- here’s why.

I think arguing that “excess capacity” should be defined as the amount of capacity that should be withdrawn to permit break even at current fares is nonsensical, and in the long run would leave aviation – and any other scheduled transportation system – with so little capacity that it would be unusable for those who need to make unplanned trips and to change plans at will – notably the business travelers so essential to economic vigor. To be useful, a scheduled transportation system needs to have sufficient unused capacity to accommodate all demand other than abnormal or emergency peaks, and I think there is general agreement that in a network system, load factors above 80% result in important spokes being fully utilized too often to meet that definition. Excess capacity is the capacity offered but unused – not the amount that exceeds what will earn a profit at existing fares. By Cordle’s

The United States needs a vigorous and profitable airline industry. In my view, there are better routes to that objective than continued airline consolidation.

Almost everyone agrees that competition offers real benefits for both consumers and producers, and in most industries, we think competition is a good thing. In the airline industry, we seem to have concluded that there is too much competition (the politically correct term is excess capacity) despite the fact that load factors (the percent of seats occupied) is very high. Thus, 32 years after deregulation, many observers have concluded that eliminating competition by encouraging consolidation is good public policy.

That’s a far cry from the popular wisdom that prevailed when the Deregulation Act of 1978 “set the industry free” to provide the unrestricted competition advocates avidly sought. In the years since, the industry’s economic realities have mixed more poorly with laissez faire theory than anticipated, and results have been far more mixed than expected.

Granted, fares are down. Adjusted

There are many reasons this might happen. Here are a couple of examples:

1. There is an incoming aircraft that needs the gate to offload passengers, get cleaned and be prepared for its next flight. Even if there is a line of aircraft awaiting departure, if the aircraft does not leave the gate the incoming aircraft has nowhere to go. Assuming that takeoff is projected to occur sometime within the next 90 minute or so, it is better to get the incoming passengers into the terminal.

2. At the time of departure, all is well. After the aircraft leaves the gate, a thunderstorm appears and aircraft on the taxiway cannot leave. A conga line of aircraft is awaiting departure. If the aircraft returns to the gate, it loses its place in the takeoff priority line. Moreover, all the gates may be full, and there is no gate to which the aircraft can return.

3. Depending on the configuration of the airport, and the aircraft is on a taxiway that does not permit one airplane to pass another, there will be no physical way for it to return to the terminal without finding

It is very hard to support the notion that keeping passengers involuntarily on an aircraft for extended periods is defensible. On the other hand, the way in which this rule was implemented will doubtless create lots of unintended consequences, and is a wonderful example of how dysfunctional our government has become.

Soon after the debate began, following several extraordinary events, it became obvious that the public is not prepared to tolerate long periods of involuntary confinement, often under unpleasant conditions, and that the industry would be well served to develop and implement solutions to the unique operating challenges that cause such things to happen. Unhappily, too many in the business chose to take the position that long tarmac delays are the consequence of circumstances beyond the control of the many companies and agencies involved in one or another aspect of airline operations -- the airlines themselves, airports, the FAA, the TSA, the Immigration Service and others.

The fact is that while procedural changes of many kinds will be requir