I flew this week for the first time since COVID hit.
Before that, I used to travel a lot for work.
I'm not a natural traveler, so it's never been something that I really enjoyed, even though I usually enjoy seeing any place that I go to. That is, I don't enjoy the process of traveling much, and I don't enjoy thinking about traveling. My father was the same way, and nearly all of the long distance traveling he'd done had been due to the Air Force.
Occupational traveling, so to speak.
Most of my traveling has been that way as well.
This is 2022, and to be accurate, the last time I flew somewhere was in 2019. I can't really recall the last time I flew anywhere, or to where, but the mostly likely spot would be Denver, as I used to fly to Denver and back in a day routinely. COVID ended that as when COVID hit, it dropped air travel down to nothing for obvious reasons, and when it came back, the number of flights in and out of here locally were cut significantly. The red eye to Denver was a casualty of that. The one to Salt Lake also went away, although I think that was even prior to that.
I used to also fly a lot to Texas for depositions. I'm not sure of when I last did that, but it was before COVID. Zoom took over most of that, so it's rarely done now.
One major thing I worked on should have had trips to South Carolina, Arizona and Illinois, but did not. All of those were done via Zoom. It worked out okay, I guess, but I can't say that I'm a fan even now. It's good enough, however, that you acclimate yourself to it and begin to believe that it's good enough
Anyhow, some travel is slowly coming back, and earlier this week I flew to Oklahoma City.
Oklahoma City.
I've been to OKC before, the first time in 1982 when an airliner discharged me there after having taken off from Cheyenne. Their terminal was much more primitive, by my recollection, at the time, and we did the classic old-fashioned walk down airliner stairs, which is seemingly a rarity now, across the tarmac and into the terminal, and then on to a bus, which went to Ft. Sill.
More recently, and in different circumstances, I've flown to Denver and boarded a large Boeing airliner. Based upon another one of our blogs, the last time I was there was in 2014. On that trip I went with two other lawyers, one of whom I knew really well, and it was a fun trip. We flew from OKC to Houston after that, that time on a small commuter jet. Since that time, he's passed away, having only been retired for a year or so when he became very ill and died.
As noted, we flew from Denver to OKC in a big airliner on that occasion.
Not this time.
Locally I boarded a Bombardier CRJ200 and then, to my surprise, in Denver boarded a second CRJ200.
Boarding the CRJ200 in Denver.
I'm not a huge fan of the CRJ200, although it's better than boarding a twin-engined turboprop. Looking it up, I see where production of the CRJ200 ceased in 2006 and that may partially explain it. I've never been on one that was really new, and they show it. Back in 06, locally, you probably boarded a turboprop.
On the ground, the stewardess assured us the plane had been thoroughly cleaned, but we were given wipes. I didn't use mine. I'm getting pretty fatalistic about COVID 19, although I'm zealous on the vaccines and boosters. Some folks did use them, and I can't blame them. The plane smelled vaguely antiseptic.
The stewardess in Denver, upon taking off, warned us the flight was going to be turbulent. The last times I flew, in 2019, they were doing that too, with the same result. It wasn't at all. I'm okay with that, but I wonder what brought about the hypersensitivity to warning of turbulence.
She was also pretty blunt and somewhat familiar in her tone, which is a change from what had been the norm.
It was a smooth ride all the way to OKC.
Getting off the plane was hot. That was the same as it was in 1982.
So the first change noted.
I never would have expected a flight from Denver to OKC on a CRJ200. Are they trying to run smaller planes now as fewer people are flying? I wasn't the only one surprised, the guy sitting next to me remarked, "I thought for Oklahoma City they would have used a bigger plane".
The trip back was more remarkable, but not in good ways.
First of all, I'd moved my flight up by two days, due to a big change in what I was doing there. I didn't pay that much attention to the closeness of the connection in Denver. I used to always do that. It was extremely right.
Concluding my business in OKC I had to rush, by foot, back to the hotel and turned my right ankle something fierce. As a high school student, I turned it severely, and it's never really been the same, although it rarely causes me problems. I injured it very severely a second time, probably about fifteen years ago or so. So it'll turn.
It's still really hurting.
Added to that, some weeks ago, I somehow injured my right elbow. I haven't gone in for attention to it, but it really hurts.
I've never flown injured before, but it's miserable.
When I got on the plane in OKC, an elderly woman was seated next to me. I rarely pay any attention to the passengers seated next to me, but she was hard not to notice right from the onset. For one thing, she was extremely nervous getting seated. She even remarked to me, "you'd think I'd never flown before".
Once on the plane, she was absolutely convinced that there was some trouble with the airplane, as the pilots were not in the cabin. As luck would have it, a pilot from another airline was seated in the set in front of her, and hence nearly me, flying back to his home in Denver. That meant he was subject to continual questions, including "can you fly the plane if they don't come?"
She wasn't kidding, and actually assumed that he could.
The pilots weren't in the cabin as the airplane, we learned, had been on the ground in Denver all day and the interior was very hot. They were outside as there's a way that the plants can be hooked up to external air conditioning, and they were working on that project. The plane never did get cool, but it was tolerable.
The same type of plane on the way down was fine, I thought, but two colleagues who also traveled down, at different times, both indicated that their planes were hot. One volunteered the opinion that CRJ200s were simply a hot aircraft. I'm not sure.
At any rate, we got rolling on the tarmac and the stewardess announced we'd lost some time, but would try to make it up, particularly as there were afternoon thundershowers expected in Denver. As it was, we left twenty minutes late, and then again announced that there were afternoon thundershowers expected, and it might be rough.
The lady next to me was really now worried about her plane being late in Denver. In spite of the instructions of the crew to turn off cell phones, she didn't, and texted the entire flight and took placed a phone call using the hands-free option, making those of us near her unwilling eavesdroppers. From time to time, she leaned up to the traveling pilot and asked if we'd make it to Denver on time. He always assured her that we would. In the row behind me, in the meantime, there were two gentlemen from a foreign land speaking in their native language so loudly that I'm sure it could have been heard back home, wherever that was.
I don't know if we landed on time or not, but we were delayed on the tarmac as they looked for stairs and then had a hard time hooking them up. By the time they opened the cabin door, I had 20 minutes to make it to my next flight, on a different concourse. When they opened up the doors, the stewardess, as they now do, asked if anyone had a "tight" connection, and the lady next to me said she did. The pilot immediately said "two hours, you do not".
I did, and stated that I did. They let me go.
I sped walked through the terminal, concourse A to B with the train in between, on my injured ankle, making it just as they were boarding my plane. Amazingly, they were loading my baggage as I got on.
That's pretty impressive, really.
The final plane was a CRJ700. They made them up until 2020, and they're a little bigger. Better yet, the exit row actually has legroom.
Overall observations? I don't like the smaller planes for longer trips, but who would? I guess I can't blame them for switching to them. I suspect fewer people are traveling for any reason.
And it's easy to forget the manners and habits of traveling, even after just a short couple of years break. I mean that for myself as much as anyone else.
We don't tend to post original commentary on this blog, but on our others, but given the topics, it's appropriate here.
And this will be a dual post, appearing on both Railhead and The Aerodrome simultaneously.
Like some, as in all, of our reflection posts that have gone up on our companion blogs, this entry is impacted by COVID 19, as everything is.
It's also heavily impacted by politics.
And of course, COVID 19 itself has become strangely political.
The onset of the terrible pandemic shut down nearly every economy in the world, save for those in areas with economies so underdeveloped that they couldn't shut down. That impacted the world's transportation networks in a major way, and it still is. COVID 19 also became a factor in the last election, with a large section of the American public becoming extremely unhappy with the Trump Administration's response to the pandemic. Added to the mix, heightened concerns over global warming have finally started to accelerate an American response to the threat.
All of which gets us to transportation, the topic of these blogs in some ways.
For at least a decade, it's been obvious that electric automobile are going to replace fossil fuel powered ones. There are, of course, deniers, but the die is cast and that's where things will go.
It's also become obvious that technology is going to take truck driver out of their seats, and put a few, albeit a very few, in automated offices elsewhere where they'll monitor remote fleets of trucks. Or at least that's the thought.
The Biden Administration, moreover, included money for railroads in is large infrastructure bill. This has developed in various ways, but the big emphasis has been on expanding Amtrak.
I have real problems, I'll admit, with the scope of the proposed infrastructure spending proposals that President Biden is looking at, but if they go forward, I really hope we do see rail service restored (and that's what it would be) between Cheyenne and Denver.
The plan proposes to invest $80B in Amtrak. Yes, $80B. Most of that will go to repairs, believe it or not, as the Amtrak has never been a favorite of the Republican Party, which in its heard of hearts feels that the quasi public rail line is simply a way of preserving an obsolete mode of transportation at the Government's expense. But rail has been receiving a lot of attention recently for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that in a now carbon conscious era, it's the greenest mode of transportation taht we have, something the commercial rail lines have been emphasizing.
Indeed, if the American public wasn't afraid of a nuclear power the same way that four year olds are afraid of monsters that live under their beds, it could be greener yet, and there's some talk of now supporting nuclear power among serious informed environmentalists. A campaign to push that, called the Solutionary Rail, is now active. We'll deal with that some other time.
Here we're noting that we're hopeful that if this does go through, and as noted we have real reservations about this level of expenditure, that Amtrak does put in a passenger line from Cheyenne to Pueblo.
A line connecting Ft. Collins to Denver has been a proposal in Colorado for quite a while and has some backing there. The same line of thought has already included Cheyenne. This has a lot to do with trying to ease the burgeoning traffic problem this area experiences due to the massive population growth in Colorado. Wyomingites, I suppose, should therefore approach this with some caution as it would tie us into the Front Range communities in a way that we might not want to be. Still, it's an interesting idea.
It's one that for some reason I think will fall through, and I also suspect it'll receive no support in Wyoming. Still, it's interesting.
During the past year, locally, flights to Casper were put in jeopardy. This was a byproduct of COVID 19, as air travel dropped off to nearly nothing, nationwide, and that made short flights economically iffy.
Before the pandemic, Delta had cut back its flight schedule to Salt Lake, which is a major Delta hub. This caused its bookings to drop down anyway. I used to fly to Salt Lake in the morning, pre COVID, do business, and then fly back that evening. Once Delta cuts its flights back, however, that became impossible.
That meant that Delta, at that point, had aced itself out of the day trip business market, which it seemingly remains unaware of for some reason. COVID hurt things further. At that point it threatened to abandon its service unless it could receive some assistance. The county and the local municipalities rose to the occasion.
I'm really not too certain what my view on this is. Overall, I suppose it's a good thing.
Delta is one of the two carriers, relying on regional contractors, serving the Natrona County International Airport, and hence all of Central Wyoming. It flies to and from Salt Lake, while United flies to and from Denver.
It used to have great connections. A businessman in Casper could take the red eye to Salt Lake and then catch the late flight back. That's no longer possible Frankly, depending upon what you're doing, it's nearly as easy to drive to Salt Lake now.
And perhaps that's cutting into their passenger list, along with COVID 19, although I'm told that flights have been full recently.
Anyhow, losing Delta would be a disaster. We'd be down to just United. Not only would that mean that there was no competition, it'd place us in a shaky position, maybe, as the overall viability of air travel starts to reduce once a carrier pulls out.
A couple of legislatures ago there was an effort to subsidize intrastate air travel, and I think it passed. While Wyomingites howl about "socialism", as we loosely and fairly inaccurately describe it, we're hugely okay with transportation being subsidized. We likely need to be, or it'll cut us off from the rest of everything more than we already are, and that has a certain domino effect.
I don't know what the overall solution to this problem is, assuming there is one, but whatever it is, subsidies appear likely to be part of it for the immediate future . . . and maybe there are some avenues open there we aren't pursuing and should be.
At the same time, infrastructure money became available for the state's airports as well.
The Federal funds can be used for terminals, runways and parking lots and the like.
Of Wyoming airports, Jackson's will get the most, receiving $3.38M. Natrona County International Airport gets the second-largest amount at $1.34M. Natrona County's airport will use the funds for electrical work.
So flights were kept and improvements will be made.
Recently, pilot pay has been tripled, albeit only for one month.
This due to an ongoing pilot shortage, which has been heightened by the Omicron variant of COVID 19.
I.e, United is trying to fill the pilot seats this month.
So, that's what happened.
Now, what might we hope will happen?
1. Electric Avenue
Everything always seem really difficult until its done, and then not so much.
Which doesn't discount difficulty.
The Transcontinental Railraod was created in the US through the American System, something that's been largely forgotten. Private railroads didn't leap at the chance to put in thousands of miles of rail line across uninhabited territory. No, the Federal Government caused the rail line to come about by providing thousands of acres of valuable land to two start up companies and then guarding the workers with the Army, at taxpayer expense.
We note that as, right now, railroad are already the "greenest" means of transportation in the US. They could be made more so by electrifying them, just as the Trans Siberian Railway is. At the same time, if a program to rapidly convert energy production in the US to nuclear was engaged in, the US transportation system could be made basically "green" in very little time. Probably five years or less.
If we intend to "build back better", we ought to do that.
This would, I'd note, largely shift long transportation back to its pre 1960s state. Mostly by rail. Trucking came in because the US decided, particularly during the Eisenhower Administration, to subsidize massive coast to coast highways.
For the most part, we no longer really need them.
Oh, we need highways, but with advances in technology of all sorts, we need them a lot less than we once did. And frankly, we never really needed them way that the Federal Government maintained we did. It's been a huge financial burden on the taxpayers, and its subsidized one industry over another.
Yes, this is radical, but we should do it.
Now, before a person either get too romantic, or too weepy, over this, a couple of things.
One is that we already have an 80,000 teamster shortage for trucking. I.e., yes, this plan would put a lot of drivers out of work, but its a dying occupation anyway. Indeed, in recent years its become on that is oddly increasingly filled with Eastern Europeans who seemingly take it up as its a job they can occupy with little training. The age of the old burly American double shifting teamster is long over.
And to the extent it isn't, automated trucks are about to make it that way for everyone.
The trains, we'd note, will be automated too. It's inevitable. They'll be operated like giant train sets from a central location. Something that's frankly easier, and safer, to do, than it would be for semi tractors.
2. Subsidized local air travel
It's going to take longer to electrify aircraft, particularly those that haul people, but electrification of light aircraft is already being worked on. The Air Force has, moreover, been working on alternative jet fuels.
Anyhow, if we must subsidize something in long distance transportation, that should be local air travel. Its safe, effective and vital for local economies. I don't care if that is quasi socialist. It should be done.
3. The abandoned runways.
Locally, I'd like to see some of that infrastructure money go to the extra runway or runways at the NatCo airport being repaired. I know that they were little used, but they're there.
The mental image some passengers have of flight attendants.
Problems with passengers have become so prevalent since air travel started to resume as the pandemic eases the US due to the increase in vaccination that United Airlines and Southwest Airlines have banned the serving of alcohol on their flights.
I've frankly always thought this a bit odd in the first place. Most modern airline flights are comparatively short and I don't know why you'd want to drink. . . anything. I've actually posted about this on one of our companion blogs, but what I've learned over the years is that if you offer people something, for the most part people will take it.
"Would you like a big steaming bowl of walrus blubber?"
"Yes, please".
What some folks seemingly see when getting on an airplane.
I've been on flights so short that there would be really no way to consume any beverage without a dedicated effort. None the less, I've seen, even on those, and even if they're in the morning, people take a drink. One one memorable flight a gentleman in his late 60s or 70s took a beer and immediately needed to go to the restroom, which he couldn't as the flight was too short and there wasn't time. Why do that to yourself?
Alcoholism may be one reason. I once was on a flight that took off and the shaky man next to me ordered a beer as soon as he could. This was no later than 10:00 a.m. Either he was scared to death or he had dependency on alcohol that was pronounced. Indeed, serving customers in that condition may be the one thing that justified booze on flights.
I should note that I don't even take water, soda or coffee on flights. They're not that long. The current American "I must constantly be drinking" cultural trait that causes people to pack around 55 gallon drums of water all the time predates me, and I don't need to be constantly sucking down fluids and I don't want to on something that can be pretty bouncy. Indeed, its inevitably the case that if I'm on a flight with mild turbulence the passenger next to me will order coffee and sit it on the seat tray, so I can then watch it bounce around and threaten to drench me.
now that flights are less common, due to cancellations during the pandemic.
FAA
Informational Letter to Pilots
The FAA recognizes that there is a trend in the
industry towards using computer and cell phone applications to facilitate air
transportation by connecting potential passengers to aircraft owners and
pilots willing to provide professional services. Some of these applications
enable the provision – directly or indirectly – of both an aircraft and one
or more crewmembers to customers seeking air transportation.
This letter serves as a reminder to all pilots that, as
a general rule, pursuant to 14 CFR (commonly known by industry as the Federal
Aviation Regulations FARs) private pilots may neither act as pilot-in-command
(PIC) of an aircraft for compensation or hire nor act as a PIC of an aircraft
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Furthermore, to engage
in air transportation a pilot must hold a commercial or airline transport
pilot license and must operate the flights in accordance with the
requirements that apply to the specific operation conducted (e.g., Part 135).
To meet the operational requirements, the pilots must be employed (as a
direct employee or agent) by the certificate holder with operational control
of the flight (e.g., a Part 135 certificate holder) or must herself or
himself hold a certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 119.
Another common pitfall to be aware of is the “sham dry
lease” or the “wet lease in disguise.” This situation occurs when one or more
parties act in concert to provide an aircraft and at least one crewmember to
a potential passenger. One could see this, for example, when the passenger
enters into two independent contracts with the party that provides the
aircraft and the pilot. One could also see this when two or more parties
agree to provide a bundle (e.g., when the lessor of the aircraft conditions
the lease – whether directly or indirectly – to entering into a professional
services agreement with a specific pilot or group of pilots. This type of
scenario is further discussed in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-37B,
Truth in Leasing.
Whenever you pilot an aircraft subject to a dry-lease
agreement (a dry lease is an aircraft leased with no crew), you
should consider the following: Is it truly a dry-lease agreement whereby
the lessee, in practice and agreement, has operational control in
accordance with AC 91-37B and the FARs? If not, then flights
operated under this agreement may be illegal charters and you,
the pilot, may be in violation of the FARs for those flight
operations.
Are you as the pilot also providing the aircraft
involved in the dry-lease? If so, you may be in violation of the
FARs for those flight operations if you do not have the
appropriate operational authority to conduct the flights (e.g., a
Part 135 certificate.)
An additional caution to consider is flight-sharing. Section 61.113(c) of Title 14 of the CFR
allows for private pilots to share certain expenses. Pilots may share
operating expenses with passengers on a pro rata basis when those
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
To properly conduct an expense sharing flight under 61.113(c), the pilot
and passengers must have a common purpose and the pilot cannot hold out
as offering services to the public. The “common-purpose test”
anticipates that the pilot and expense-sharing passengers share a “bona
fide common purpose” for their travel and the pilot has chosen the
destination.
Communications with passengers for a common-purpose
flight are restricted to a defined and limited audience to avoid the “holding
out” element of common carriage. For example, advertising in any form (word
of mouth, website, reputation, etc.) raises the question of “holding-out.”
Note that, while a pilot exercising private pilot privileges may share
expenses with passengers within the constraints of § 61.113(c), the pilot
cannot conduct any commercial operation under Part 119 or the less stringent
operating rules of Part 91 (e.g., aerial work operations, crop dusting,
banner towing, ferry or training flights, or other commercial operations
excluded from the certification requirements of Part 119).
For more information on sharing flight expenses, common
purpose, and holding out see:
Unauthorized 135 operations continue to be a problem
nationwide, putting the flying public in danger, diluting safety in the
national airspace system, and undercutting the business of legitimate
operators. If you have questions regarding dry-lease agreements or sharing
expenses, please review the FARs and ACs. Additionally, you may contact your
local Flight Standards District Office
for assistance or seek the advice of a qualified aviation attorney.
Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic: The Wyoming Air National Guard will be doing a fly over of regional hospitals throughout the state on Friday to honor health care workers. At the same time, some of the emergency centers set up for the Pandemic are standing down. They'll remain ready as a reserve, should the virus revive, but they are not going to be maintained on a standing basis.
which means that the tower will now be manned for 8 hours rather than 16.
P51 in foreground, NIA Tower in background.
The airport is open 24 hours a day, but it only has tower personnel now for 16 of those hours. While this is due to the drop in flights caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic, there's concern that the 8 hour subtraction will become permanent as that's the history of such things.
The Natrona County International Airport is the largest airport in Wyoming and has major infrastructure. Indeed its so large that, sadly, some of its original runways are closed. They unnecessary but they've also fallen into disrepair. Something like this doesn't help keep the airport be what it is, let alone help it obtain what it should be.
Additionally, while the news article I read didn't go into it, this seems odd as the only major cost savings associated with reducing hours by 50% would be to reduce tower personnel by 50% as well. But didn't the government want employers to keep everyone on the payroll that they could?
Unless you have a special interest in them, you probably haven't been thinking much about means of transportation lately.
Indeed, you probably haven't been going anywhere much, for that matter.
But because we have a special interest in the topic, and have dedicated blogs on two of the three title items here, we've been thinking about them a little, and we're seeing some interesting things going on.
Regionally, at least one of the railroads has been furloughing employees. Coal is collapsing, there isn't really anywhere near as much oil shipped by rail as there once was and oil is down anyway, and we're entering what appears to be a pretty deep recession.
Not a cheery scenario for the railroads right now at all.
Air travel has decreased 96% due to COVID 19. That's a whopping huge decrease to say the least.
96%.
Flights locally have been reduced 50%. No need for all of the old ones, and it's not like they were flying out of here every few minutes as it was. Cheyenne cancelled a run to Dallas it had (until they cancelled it, I didn't know that they even had one).
Well there'd certainly be good reason to suspect it wouldn't. Oil is below $20bbl and now at an all time historic low. Prices at the pump have been dropping. Should be great for cars, right?
Nope. Sales of automobiles have crashed. People just aren't going out and buying, and in a lot of places, of course, they can't. And they likely don't want to either.
Hired automobile rides, such as Uber, are also down, not surprisingly.
