Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Nareed

Ergo the new airport maybe? :)
Seriously, lots of widebodies visit Vegas. BA, Condor, one of the ME3, Hawaiian, AF, and I suspect others. No US wide bodies, I'll buy that (at least not any more; who knows what happened int he 80s and 90s)

Vegas passengers are only 8% international in 2016 while JFK is 54% and Miami is 48%.

Vegas airport can easily handle half a dozen widebody landings by simply closing off the cross runways for a few minutes. But I've talked extensively about problems of building a reliever airport from scratch.

The only real reliever airport built from scratch in the USA was Washington Dulles, and it ran on federal subsidies for two decades.

Quote: Pacomartin

Vegas passengers are only 8% international in 2016 while JFK is 54% and Miami is 48%.

Non-stop.

Who knows how many more arrive via IAH, SFO, LAX, JFK, DFW, etc. Some years ago I nearly flew America West via Phoenix, before prices dropped on a Mexicana fare.

Quote:

But I've talked extensively about problems of building a reliever airport from scratch.

Yes, but a government, be it local, state or federal, with an appropriation is like a sieve with water. It can't hold on to the money and must spend it.

LAS is one of the most convenient airports to fly to, at least for tourists. 95% of the major hotels are very near (it even seems like the Luxor is a short walk away). a reliever won't work (though the ULCCs might love it; I mean, if Norwegian will fly a 737 to Stuart, NY, they may as well fly a 787 to Ivanpah, NV). But if the project for one can't get traction, you'll see agitation to simply close McCarran and move to another, better airport.

Quote: Nareed

But if the project for one can't get traction, you'll see agitation to simply close McCarran and move to another, better airport.

That is what normally happens. Most notably with Denver Airport. One can argue that Dallas airport did not close when Dallas Fort Worth opened, but they put severe restrictions on the old airport so only one airline remained.

If you don't close the old airport, then there is not enough impetus to build in the ground support infrastructure. Also there is no way to decide fairly how to split the flights.

It is shocking to think that major airlines would abandon a top 10 airport in the USA, but if they are told to go to the new airport in Ivanpah while McCarran stays open, I think that the three major airlines will actually abandon Las Vegas to Southwest, Allegiant, Alaska, JetBlue, Frontier, Hawaiian, Spirit and the foreign airlines.

American Airlines Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York–JFK, Philadelphia, Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Washington–National

Delta Air Lines Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York–JFK, Salt Lake City, Seattle/Tacoma Seasonal: Honolulu (begins December 21, 2017)

United Airlines Chicago–O'Hare, Denver, Houston–Intercontinental, Los Angeles, Newark, San Francisco, Washington–Dulles

They may be tempted to draw a circle of range 1250 miles and say only domestic flights from within that circle can fly to the old airport.

It occurs to me that airplanes would last longer, structurally, if they pressurized to a much higher altitude. the lower pressure differential with the stratosphere would cause less strain on the fuselage. And by deferring replacement, airlines could save money in capital costs and offer lower fares.

Of course, the passengers would all die of hypoxia. But that's just another revenue opportunity.

A commercial plane flies between 30 and 40 thousand feet. Call it an average of 35,000, and that's about 10,700 meters, or 10.7 kilometers. So split the difference and pressurize to 5,000 meters. At such altitude, there is enough oxygen for most healthy people in decent physical shape to continue living, if they don't make physical exertions, such as lifting a finger.

So you could pay that low-low fare, sit perfectly still (and preferably asleep) for hours, and take your chances you'll get off the plane alive. or you could pay a nominal fee of, say $50, for an oxygen bottle (plus a $100 refundable deposit) guaranteed to last the whole flight.

Oh, thinner air retains less heat, too. and coupled with the lack of activity, well, you'll want a blanket. You can get one for a small $25 fee, also guaranteed to last the whole flight. Or you can be a cheapskate and wear warm clothes and pay only the $24.50 warm clothes fee (hey, those layers add weight that costs fuel).

If you use nasal delivery for the oxygen (cheaper), passengers will indulge as much as ever on buy-on-board food and beverage options. they may even pay extra for hot food and beverages due to the colder air, too.

See, it's a classic win-win situation for all!

Quote: Nareed

It occurs to me that airplanes would last longer, structurally, if they pressurized to a much higher altitude. the lower pressure differential with the stratosphere would cause less strain on the fuselage. And by deferring replacement, airlines could save money in capital costs and offer lower fares.!

I occurs to a lot of other people as well.

The term "cabin altitude" is defined as the equivalent altitude above mean sea level having the same atmospheric pressure according to the International Standard Atmosphere.

Keeping the cabin altitude below 8,000 ft generally prevents significant hypoxia, altitude sickness, decompression sickness, and barotrauma. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations in the U.S. mandate that under normal operating conditions, the cabin altitude may not exceed this limit at the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft.

The military aircraft that I have flown use a cabin altitude of 10,000' and it makes a big difference in pain in your ears, dehydration and headaches.

The tendency in modern design is to aim for a much lower cabin altitude to make it more comfortable for your passengers. Business aircraft are designed for an even lower cabin pressure with one designed for zero feet (which is more of a sales gimmick IMHO).

The federal regulations are more relaxed with small planes incapable of pressurization, and planes that are used for things like parachuting can legally go as high as 15,000' (although most don't venture above 13,000'). Passenger prop planes are probably not flown above 8000' and are popular in Florida or the Caribbean .

Quote: Pacomartin

The military aircraft that I have flown use a cabin altitude of 10,000' and it makes a big difference in pain in your ears, dehydration and headaches.

These are much overlooked health considerations.

Quote: Pacomartin

The tendency in modern design is to aim for a much lower cabin altitude to make it more comfortable for your passengers.

Yes, but that's misguided and has worked only because the airlines haven't thought about charging extra for air. It happened with seating, space, lavatory sizes, galleys, etc. it'll happen with the cabin pressure eventually. Hell, I'm thinking of ways of charging for gravity!

It might just be done in LCC and ULCC airlines, though, because passengers in first and business class may not accept complimentary bottled air as sufficient. And putting up an airlock between economy and the premium cabins would be too expensive.

Gasses always occupy the whole volume of a container. This means at lower pressures there's less air inside the plane. That 1) reduces the mass and weight of the plane and saves fuel, and 2) means there's more space between passengers, even if there really isn't (or it can be spun that way).

I don't know how to calculate teh effect of 'less air' but I always thought the cost factor related to using more fuel to compensate for use of bleed air to pressurize the cabin.

Quote: Nareed

Of course, the passengers would all die of hypoxia. But that's just another revenue opportunity.

I have always wondered on Spirit or Allegiant when the oxygen masks drop is there going to be a credit card swipe on them.

Quote: DRich

I have always wondered on Spirit or Allegiant when the oxygen masks drop is there going to be a credit card swipe on them.

I think they'll wait for Ryanair to do it first.

But it won't be like that.

You know how when you rent a car, they can charge your credit card after you return the car for things like fuel or damage? I bet Ryanair will start doing this. When you return from your trip, you'll see an "Oxygen delivery charge" on your card.

Since not everyone pays for their tickets with a card, though, an alternative method would be to have the cabin crew collect the fee before they let passengers off. To avoid noncompliance, they won't let anyone off the plane until everyone pays up