« Politicalspeak | Main | Criticizing Clinton The Left Way »
November 17, 2007
Hey, Well Done
by Stephen of the Thinkery
In anticipation of crowded airports and planes for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, President Bush announced that he would open up military airspace in an effort to reduce congestion and make flying a bit more tolerable.
It's certainly an interesting idea, and I know that most air travelers would welcome almost any strategy to make things easier. Here's some commentary on the decision from Mike Boyd, president of the Boyd Group, an aviation consulting firm, on Fox & Friends a couple days ago:
Even though this decision won't actually do anything, Democrats should really take notice of it and file it away for future reference. It's a masterful move politically. It sounds like a good idea, and when people are stuck in airports this week they'll be able to think, "Thank goodness Bush opened up all that airspace or this would really be bad!"
Also, since there really isn't any way for the government to make flying more enjoyable - except for the meaningless nonsense we have to go through in the security lines - and since this announcement will probably actually make some people feel a little better about whatever experience they do have this next week, I don't think there's any reason to criticize Bush's team for coming up with the idea. Sometimes good politics, and even good governance, is just about making "the American folks/people/proletariat" feel good.
November 17, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
'when people are stuck in airports this week they'll be able to think, "Thank goodness Bush opened up all that airspace or this would really be bad!"' - People that dumb can't afford to buy a plane ticket.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Nov 17, 2007 6:55:56 PM
If you watch the tape, the aviation expert they bring in is openly scornful of the policy and bluntly declares it to be total bullshit.
When the analyst on Fox News calls the President on his bullshit, I have to hope that CNN and MSNBC will follow suit.
Look, I'm all for Presidents looking for small, spirit-lifting gestures. If that's what this was, I would applaud Bush for it. Instead, we have a very unpopular President touting an utterly meaningless new micropolicy that's so transparently useless that even his own propaganda service can't in good faith sell it.
It's Bush holding that shiny plastic turkey all over again: this airspace thing is an completely artificial gesture intended to improve Bush's image and serve no one else.
If the other networks follow Fox's example, this could actually backfire! And that's just another reason why Democrats should never even glance at a page from the Bush '43 playbook.
Posted by: Philly | Nov 17, 2007 7:25:36 PM
"Also, since there really isn't any way for the government to make flying more enjoyable - except for the meaningless nonsense we have to go through in the security lines - and"
So ... have less nonsense! It's mostly theater anyway, right? There's no reason I should have to take off my shoes and check luggage with a full-sized shampoo bottle.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Nov 17, 2007 8:51:06 PM
So ... have less nonsense! It's mostly theater anyway, right? There's no reason I should have to take off my shoes and check luggage with a full-sized shampoo bottle.
Well, sure. I'm just trying to be charitable, I suppose. Don't worry, though; I'll be back in regular form soon.
I could, if you want, post an extended rant on how utterly stupid and meaningless the "security" measures at our airports are. I traveled to Trinidad & Tobago once during a rather tense time - I briefly saw a gun battle between a rebel group and government forces - and didn't have to put up with nearly the stupidity I do to travel from Kansas City to Dallas. In Korea the airport was patrolled by soldiers with automatic weapons, it had towers with heavy gun emplacements and at one point we flew out of the country when there was a running battle between North and South Korean special forces less than 50 miles away, and even then there was less hassle than what we get here.
Well, Stephen's feelings of charitability are now over. Thanks, Nicholas.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 17, 2007 9:03:20 PM
The clip was a hoot! It was as if the FauxNews shills couldn't believe that something the Prezdint was announcing as a "good thing" wasn't going to make any difference at all. And I loved their close - the aviation expert who told the truth "won't be invited to the WH Christmas party" - who gives a shit?
Posted by: CParis | Nov 17, 2007 9:53:26 PM
"Even though this decision won't actually do anything, Democrats should really take notice of it and file it away for future reference. It's a masterful move politically"
AKA "bread and circuses".
Posted by: CParis | Nov 17, 2007 9:57:11 PM
What would be involved in changing the rules to prioritize big planes over small planes, when waiting for their turn at the runway? This would make an enormous difference. (I only mention it because of your claim that there's nothing the government could do to make flying more enjoyable.)
Posted by: Allen K. | Nov 17, 2007 10:05:25 PM
90% of military airspace is open at any given time to civilian flights on flightplans (which is all commercial airliners) anyway. Only super-secret areas such as Area 51 are permanently closed, and of course those where training exercises are scheduled. I doubt that the military schedules many optional training exercises Christmas week normally.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 17, 2007 10:52:36 PM
> What would be involved in changing the rules to
> prioritize big planes over small planes, when
> waiting for their turn at the runway?
The airlines have been very very successful at implanting the meme that "those little airplanes are clogging everything up; blame them and raise their fees" but there is very little evidence that that is the root cause of the delay problem. Just for starters, business airplanes do their best to use small reliever airports specifically because they don't want to get caught in the airlines' delays at the hub airports. Read some of Boyd's earlier essays for more information.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 17, 2007 10:59:04 PM
Yeah... speaking of "not fully briefed" it looked as though the Fox folks were stunned that the "aviation expert" wouldn't give them a "Bush was wonderful" soundbite, but instead called the plans embarrassing. I'm only surprised because they usually do a better job at Fox of finding cheerleaders to say exactly what they want to hear, or who will at least say "yes" to any crazy thing the host offers.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM
Here's another good discussion of this issue from The Cranky Flyer (no relation - I guess there's just a lot of crankiness out there).
Cranky Observer
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 17, 2007 11:06:17 PM
And that doubling of the money paid when one is bumped off a flight? A day after Bush's promises, the stenographers in the traditional media sheepishly reported (well, some of them did) that if it does go through, that new regulation won't take effect until next year (Holiday '08).
As Shadowfax at Moving Meat said, the skies are already big--opening new air corridors does not mean there will be additional runways, terminals, facilities, and personnel to deal with the surfeit of travelers. There are simply too many people in too many planes going to too few airports.
And the TSA is largely privatized now--by, you guessed it, Lockheed Martin--and it's paying its workers much lower wages than you'd want someone to be paid when he was responsible for keeping explosives etc. off your plane.
This would seem a good time to execute the time-tested *head-desk* move.
Posted by: litbrit | Nov 17, 2007 11:38:59 PM
litbrit,
Yeah, the skies are big, especially where the planes don't really need to go. In places where the military might possibly maybe have something that might get in the way of commercial flights - such as my home state of New Mexico - there's not a whole lot of planes that really need to fly over that area.
Airspace only gets crowded around airports, and the military doesn't have anything to do with that. Like Boyd said in the clip, the equipment that runs everything really sucks. Upgrading that would help things out.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 18, 2007 12:19:34 AM
The rate-limiting step or choke point in the movement of airplanes is probably the airports themselves; opening up airspace probably won't do much, because it is not rate-limiting.
Posted by: bob h | Nov 18, 2007 7:42:22 AM
And yet another good discussion of the air traffic delays from Don Brown, a recently-retired FAA controller and an excellent essayist.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 18, 2007 12:56:11 PM
Regarding Pres. Bush’s move to freeing up military airspace along the East coast, it should be noted that this airspace is normally available during holiday seasons as the military does little to no training during these times. Next, the FAA tried this notion before, two years ago. It was called Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum, and it doubled the amount of high altitude airspace for flights above 29,000 feet, by reducing minimum separation from 2,000 to 1,000 feet between airplanes. It didn’t work because delays in 2007 were the worst on record. Clearly doubling airspace or opening up an “express lane” will not solve the problem. The staffing of air traffic controllers, lowest since 1996, and limited ground capacity at major airports is the problem. In the words of Don Brown, Look at it this way, You can open up two express lanes to get into a mall for the day after sales but you will still drive around in circles looking for a (nonexistent) parking space. I guess knowing you are in the “express lane” will somehow make the wait seem better than if you were waiting in the regular lane. In the words of Marion Blakey, former head of the FAA “It's fair to say people should brace themselves and bring a good book.”
Posted by: towerflower | Nov 18, 2007 8:37:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
