Nashville International Airport Development thread

[PruneTracy]

10 minutes ago, samsonh said:

You really think outsourcing this would be the answer? Everything doesn't need to be outsourced. I know you guys hate government in all forms, but remember a Republican President started the TSA.

It makes sense for airport authorities and airlines to handle security. It's in their interests a) to keep passengers and planes safe and b) to keep operations flowing as smoothly as possible. I'm not trying to bash the feds but they only have an incentive to do one of those things, at best.

[samsonh]

7 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

It makes sense for airport authorities and airlines to handle security. It's in their interests a) to keep passengers and planes safe and b) to keep operations flowing as smoothly as possible. I'm not trying to bash the feds but they only have an incentive to do one of those things, at best.

As poorly as our airport has handled things in the past I would not trust them to pick a security firm.

[rookzie]

5 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Hey guys! Back from a trip.

As far as the TSA lines, I hope you have been following the news on this. It is not just a Nashville problem, but nationwide. The TSA just will not ever be able to do the job, simply because it is the Feds doing it. If you want in inefficiency with anything, put the government in charge.

 

Also the baggage fees have contributed to the problem because of greed of the airlines.

The third major issue is that ticket prices have dropped to the lowest level in 5 years, so many more people are traveling.

 

Why would anyone want to fly to a city that is 3 to 5 hour away drive time when they can make it faster or as fast driving is beyond me.

Air travel can take an entire day just to get 8 to 10 hours away by driving. If I can drive, I'm going to do it.

Hell, with those cities which provide it, like say Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, and New Oleans, you could take a train, and get between those sites ─ even the entire distance ─ in not much less than the gross-measured time it takes to travel by air, including shuttling to and from airports, not to say that I would necessarily do just that.  And I'm not speaking of the Northeast Regional, Capitol Corridor (California), or the Pacific Surfliner services, either.

As this is a "necessary evil", there's probably overwhelming consensus that that TSA-related slowdowns are the primary peeve among air travelers.

[arkitekte]

16 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

It makes sense for airport authorities and airlines to handle security. It's in their interests a) to keep passengers and planes safe and b) to keep operations flowing as smoothly as possible. I'm not trying to bash the feds but they only have an incentive to do one of those things, at best.

I'd argue against airport authorities/airlines handling security. That cost is only going to be put back on the passenger; particularly by the airlines. That potentially might also kill these crappy ultra low cost carriers. At the same time, would airlines having to cover security force them out of some airports? Probably so.

 

[samsonh]

20 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

I'd argue against airport authorities/airlines handling security. That cost is only going to be put back on the passenger; particularly by the airlines. That potentially might also kill these crappy ultra low cost carriers. At the same time, would airlines having to cover security force them out of some airports? Probably so.

 

Also it makes sense to have one agency in charge of standards, instead of hundreds.

[fieldmarshaldj]

4 hours ago, samsonh said:

You really think outsourcing this would be the answer? Everything doesn't need to be outsourced. I know you guys hate government in all forms, but remember a Republican President started the TSA.

No, we recognize that this (federal) government is ludicrously overstretched. It spends trillions and it can't get anything right. That a Republican started said program doesn't change the equation. They're equally guilty of massive government expansion and spending.

[samsonh]

2 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

No, we recognize that this (federal) government is ludicrously overstretched. It spends trillions and it can't get anything right. That a Republican started said program doesn't change the equation. They're equally guilty of massive government expansion and spending.

Eh I disagree and I'm very happy where my taxes go. I'm glad to pay them. I'm happy to pay more year after year. I pay lots!

 

Good luck Fmj. Hope it works out for you. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by samsonh

[Neigeville2]

6 hours ago, arkitekte said:

I'd argue against airport authorities/airlines handling security. That cost is only going to be put back on the passenger; particularly by the airlines. That potentially might also kill these crappy ultra low cost carriers. At the same time, would airlines having to cover security force them out of some airports? Probably so.

 

It should go on the passenger-who should pay for the cost of the service besides the people who use it?  Millions of people never fly and shouldn't have to subsidize those who do.  People need to take this cost into account when they decide to fly.  Or to vote against rail.

[arkitekte]

3 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

It should go on the passenger-who should pay for the cost of the service besides the people who use it?  Millions of people never fly and shouldn't have to subsidize those who do.  People need to take this cost into account when they decide to fly.  Or to vote against rail.

Only airline passengers benefit from proper passenger/luggage screening and security measures at airports? Interesting. 

[Neigeville2]

5 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

Only airline passengers benefit from proper passenger/luggage screening and security measures at airports? Interesting. 

Only airline passengers create this cost thru the choices they make.  No planes, no splodey planes.

[samsonh]

5 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

Only airline passengers create this cost thru the choices they make.  No planes, no splodey planes.

This is an interesting viewpoint. No commerce is facilitated through planes and travel? 

 

You're really going to take this viewpoint?

[fieldmarshaldj]

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

Eh I disagree and I'm very happy where my taxes go. I'm glad to pay them. I'm happy to pay more year after year. I pay lots!

 

Good luck Fmj. Hope it works out for you. 

I don't have a particular problem with your being a masochist as an individual, so long as it is applied solely to yourself. You wish to flush your money down the toilet, that's your business.

The problem is where you guys force the rest of us to adhere to that bizarre pathology, and that's why your belief system is so inherently sadistic.

[titanhog]

I'm so glad this has turned political.  I can never get enough of political discussion. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

10 minutes ago, titanhog said:

I'm so glad this has turned political.  I can never get enough of political discussion. 

Politics ? I thought we were talking about psychiatrics.

[Neigeville2]

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

This is an interesting viewpoint. No commerce is facilitated through planes and travel? 

 

You're really going to take this viewpoint?

Yes.  First, I don't see that plane passengers are doing the rest of us a favor they wouldn't be doing if they were taking HSR or any other less easily weaponized form of travel.  Planes create a unique hazard; people need to travel but they don't need to travel in explosive rockets that can be hijacked and aimed at any target.

Secondly, and I say this as a socialist who sees a vast role for government, "commerce" that demands "facilitation" it can't or won't pay for is a huge part of what's wrong with this country.

[UTgrad09]

Aight. It's bordering on uncivil with the political comments. Back to BNA specific talk. Anymore political BS and you will receive a spanking.

The TSA keeps us about as safe as a bunch of rodeo clowns. It probably wouldn't differ if it were run by the airlines/airports. Drop it and move on.

[Guest]

Wow, this took a turn. I definitely do not want to feed the beast, but I will be happy to continue this conversation in the coffee house for those interested. In general the reason I am so pro-private enterprise and anti-government bureaucracy come down to accountability and efficiency.

[RonCamp]

Not to change topics, but...

Southwest demoted BNA-Seattle service to seasonal yesterday.  Anyone know more?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/05/19/southwest-adds-five-new-nonstop-routes/84593718/

[dxfret]

Southwest's nonstops BNA to Seattle have been seasonal for many years.  Alaska Airlines flies a daily nonstop round trip BNA-SEA year round.  This summer Southwest has two daily nonstops BNA-SEA in addition to Alaska's daily nonstop flight, so Seattle is extremely well-covered.

Interesting that there will be a total 8 daily nonstops to Los Angeles (LAX) this summer -- 3 on American Airlines, 3 on Southwest Airlines and 2 on Delta Air Lines.  That's a lot of capacity between Nashville and LA.

The Bay Area is also well covered from BNA, with a daily nonstop to San Francisco (SFO) on United Airlines and a daily nonstop to Oakland (OAK) on Southwest Airlines

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by dxfret

[BnaBreaker]

im so surprised BNA still lacks a flight to PDX

[RonCamp]

1 hour ago, dxfret said:

Southwest's nonstops BNA to Seattle have been seasonal for many years.  Alaska Airlines flies a daily nonstop round trip BNA-SEA year round.  This summer Southwest has two daily nonstops BNA-SEA in addition to Alaska's daily nonstop flight, so Seattle is extremely well-covered.

Interesting that there will be a total 8 daily nonstops to Los Angeles (LAX) this summer -- 3 on American Airlines, 3 on Southwest Airlines and 2 on Delta Air Lines.  That's a lot of capacity between Nashville and LA.

The Bay Area is also well covered from BNA, with a daily nonstop to San Francisco (SFO) on United Airlines and a daily nonstop to Oakland (OAK) on Southwest Airlines

 

Thanks for the intel!

[NashRugger]

3 hours ago, RonCamp said:

Not to change topics, but...

Southwest demoted BNA-Seattle service to seasonal yesterday.  Anyone know more?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/05/19/southwest-adds-five-new-nonstop-routes/84593718/

It's always been seasonal. Being a supervisor for them at DAL, I know this schedule VERY well.

[franktown]

ita fairly uncommon to see Southwest retreat from anyone in the Nashville market. Good for Alaska

[donNdonelson2]

I don't think they are retreating from anything...it has ALWAYS been a seasonal route for them. Southwest is a pretty smart airline and if it made business sense for them to run that route year round, I bet they would do so!

[NashRugger]

11 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

I don't think they are retreating from anything...it has ALWAYS been a seasonal route for them. Southwest is a pretty smart airline and if it made business sense for them to run that route year round, I bet they would do so!

Which is exactly it! It's a big warm season flight for both business and leisure. 

We, Southwest, put a lot, and I mean A LOT, of time and consideration into network planning. There's a solid chance it will become year-round in the next 1-3 years, expecially with Alaska strictly flying 737-800s between SEA & BNA.