Out of Control

A growing number of laptop seizures by U.S. Customs from U.S. citizens entering the U.S., predominantly at airports, has concerned enough companies that they are now requiring employees to wipe their hard drives before traveling abroad. At least two multinationals, one American, one Dutch, have told employees not to carry confidential information on laptops when they travel overseas, according to the Washington Post.

The fact that corporations are instituting policies to protect themselves should signal how abusive this practice has become.

It what could amount to a case of illegal search and seizure, Customs agents are ordering employees of U.S. companies, be they U.S. citizens or foreign nationals, predominantly of Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds, to surrender cell phones, BlackBerry devices, iPods and laptop computers when re-entering the country.

Customs agents will then copy phonebooks and calling information from phones, and browser and email data from the laptops. The Post reports that border agents have demanded users provide passwords to open hard drives – the information of which is often confidential. (What the Post does not report is that, should the laptop contain confidential financial information about the company, the password disclosure itself could be a felony under Sarbanes-Oxley Act, so the hapless employee is stuck between being arrested for not cooperating with Customs agents or opening himself and his entire company’s executive management to jail time).

The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal includes an editorial on "Gridlock in the Air" -- which chronicles the troubles of air travel today. Tucked away in the next to last paragraph the editorial briefly (and completely gloss over) a possible solution:

If Congress decided instead to privatize the whole system, as Britain, Canada, Germany and other countries have done in whole or part

Of course, Reason's own Bob Poole has been saying this for years. Most recently in a 2007 report titled "The Urgent Need to Reform the Air Traffic Control System."

Thanks to Brad Hutchings for passing this along:

Future passengers aboard Virgin Galactic spaceliners can look forward to cushioned reclining seats and lots of windows during suborbital flights aboard SpaceShipTwo, a concept interior of which was unveiled by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson Thursday.

More here.

Related: An Investor’s Business Daily piece by me on space entrepreneurs

Bottom-line: Seek out bad people, not bad objects.

After the recent thwarting of a terrorist plot, Bob Poole’s new study (published by Heritage) is even more significant:

Although well-intentioned, much of the effort to enhance aviation security since September 11, 2001, has done little to make the skies significantly safer. Despite large amounts of taxpayers’ money and pas¬sengers’ time, little has been accomplished that actu¬ally increases aviation security. The time has come for Congress to start over and mandate a new approach.

Read the whole study here.

Related: Reason’s Airport Security Research Center

Modern-day lepers will soon have an airline all their own:

A new airline for smokers only is scheduled to make its first flights in March 2007.

Smintair (Smokers' International Airways) has been founded by a German businessman, Alexander W. Schoppmann, in the hope of attracting the Asian business market as well as pro-smoking Europeans. Smintair plans to fly jumbo jets with 30 first-class and 108 business-class seats equipped with televisions, DVDs, gourmet food and "charming and beautiful" flight attendants. And ashtrays, of course.

Article here, and from the Smintair website:

Allowing our guests to smoke is one of the freedoms we are happily prepared to grant. Non-smokers will find the cabin air more refreshing than on any other flight with any other airline, as SMINTAIR adds fresh outside air to the conditioning system! This is more expensive, as it burns more fuel, but it is seen as an additional service to our guests.

Related: A Pack of Lies: The Surgeon General hypes the hazards of second-hand smoke

With NASA's shuttle fleet to retire and a looming gap before a new spaceship debuts, the stage is set for private firms hoping to offer commercial cargo and crew services to the International Space Station (ISS).

Six contenders - from a field of more than 20 hopefuls - have weathered NASA's round of culling for the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) effort, with the first awards slated to be announced in August, according to some competitors. NASA plans to spend about $500 million on the COTS effort over the next five years, the agency has said.

More here.

This is more in the spirit of an Aldridge Report recommendation that said NASA should spell out missions, offer a prize, and let bottom-up competition figure out the best way to get the job done.

Meanwhile:

There’s a global groundswell of support to build spaceports.

In the United States alone, political and financial muscle is at work to install spaceports in a number of states, be it in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas … as well as Wisconsin. Other states, especially Florida, are busy trying not to be left behind in the spaceport sweepstakes by pushing for new space-industry legislation.

On the world scene, a Scotland spaceport has been touted. So too is building a spaceport in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Also being advanced is Spaceport Singapore.
…

Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson announced late last year a partnership with Branson to put in place a spaceport in the state. Branson’s Virgin Galactic will locate its world headquarters and mission control for its personal spaceflight business at the New Mexico spaceport, with start of operations projected for 2009/2010.

Burt Rutan thinks California is a better site for launches:

Rutan said that New Mexico may be good for military space operations, "but it’s not good for us…we want our passengers to see the ocean," rather than just desert on their flights, the Mojave Desert News reported.

Article here.

Related: Rutan Worries about FAA’s Red Tape

Related: My interview with Burt Rutan.

A healthy suborbital space travel industry, complete with space hotels and trips to the moon and beyond, is possible if only government will restrain from stifling creativity and innovation with burdensome regulations. So said Burt Rutan, leader of the SpaceShipOne team that became the first to launch a privately-funded human spaceflight in 2004, at the 25th International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles recently.

According to a space.com article:

Rutan said that he remains worried about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial space transportation regulations, tagging it a dilemma. There remain several sticky, red tape rules that may well cripple experimental research and development of passenger-carrying space planes.

Such rules are inhibiting the prospect that a sustainable suborbital space travel industry can be established, Rutan argued.

Rutan also criticized NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program and plans to revisit the Moon, likening NASA's efforts to archeology. Said Rutan, They are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough. . . . If we copy what we had it won't be affordable enough or safe enough.

Rutan has thus hit upon the critical difference between efforts driven by market forces and those driven by political decisions and ambitions. Market entrepreneurship encourages risk and demands results. Political entrepreneurship only seeks to further political goals and careers—even when those efforts contradict the laws of economics and cannot be held accountable.

Rutan continues to put his money where his mouth is. He and his Scaled Composites company are busy developing a fleet of suborbital spaceliners and two giant carrier planes for Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Gallactic venture.

That’s how Jon Logsdon of the Space Policy Institute describes what a trip into suborbital space will feel like. Tourists could be catapulted into space as early as next year and Futron, a Bethesda, Md.-based aerospace consulting firm, estimates that revenues in the space tourism industry could exceed $1 billion a year by 2021.

Who will be taking us into space? We’ve heard a lot about the Rutan-Branson team behind Virgin Galactic, but there will be other companies too:

Oklahoma-based Rocketplane Kistler is one of Virgin Galactic's biggest competitors. Rocketplane Kistler, whose main investor is American businessman George French, hopes to start test flights next January and fly commercially by next summer. French owns several businesses including a space education company in Wisconsin.

The company is building a souped-up, 42-foot-long suborbital Lear jet that can seat three passengers and a pilot. Unlike SpaceShipTwo, which would piggyback atop a mothership to a certain height, the Rocketplane XP would take off and land like an airplane using turbojets and rockets.
…
Space Adventures, a Virginia-based space travel agency best known for brokering three tourists to the international space station, is the latest entrant.

Last month, Space Adventures announced a partnership with members of the Ansari family — the major funders of the $10 million X Prize won by SpaceShipOne — to develop Russian-designed suborbital rockets that would launch from a proposed spaceport in the United Arab Emirates by 2008.
…
PlanetSpace, backed by American businessman Chirinjeev Kathuria, is building a 54-foot-long, three-seat suborbital rocket that would launch from somewhere in the Great Lakes region and re-enter Earth by splashing into the water. It hopes to fly 2,000 passengers in the first five years, beginning in 2008.

Article here.

Thanks to Don for the tip.

Related: My interview with Burt Rutan.

Space Adventures, the company that has sent tourists into space on Russian rockets, is teaming up with Prodea, an investment firm founded by the Ansari family, to develop a fleet of suborbital, reusable spacecraft for space tourism. The Federal Space Agency of the Russian Federation will also participate, by supervising the development of the vehicles.

Article here.

For more, go here and here.

Might the flying car finally make the jump from fantasy to reality?

Flying cars are technically feasible; [start-up company] Terrafugia points out that inventor Molt Taylor built prototypes in the 1950s and 1960s--but they haven't been practical from an economic perspective.

The picture has changed, however, with the development of lighter and stronger construction materials and more efficient engines. Terrafugia is aiming to build a vehicle that will fly at 120 miles per hour and get 30 miles a gallon in the air. (It will also get 40 miles per gallon on the freeway and 30 in the city).

The Transition vehicle will carry a payload of only 430 pounds, far less than cars, but how many cars can take flight after 1,500 feet of takeoff space?

Demand also has finally begun to emerge. Today's clogged freeway traffic and dispersed suburban living patterns have created an audience for these types of vehicles. Regional airports are also somewhat plentiful and underutilized. In addition, Federal Aviation Administration regulations passed in 2004 have made it easier to get a sport pilot's license.

The Transition is a "personal air vehicle," basically an SUV with retractable wings that will be designed for 100 to 500 mile jumps. Terrafugia tells us to expect a fully operational prototype by 2008 or earlier and the company says folks will be able to buy them by 2009 or 2010.

Article here.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an update on airport privatization in India:

Last week, India's GMR Industries and Frankfurt airport operator Fraport won the bid for New Delhi's airport, while India's GVK group and its South African partner will take Bombay. The private operators will control a 74% stake in each airport, while the state-controlled Airports Authority of India will hold the remainder.

The deal is one of a string of airport privatizations globally in recent years, stretching from Sydney to Rome. That's a positive trend, given the way governments tend to turn anything they operate into a source of political patronage.

Sadly, there wasn't much time to celebrate this sale before the trouble began. Communist parties opposed the privatizations. The bidding decision, hampered by inexperienced government oversight and a last-minute switch in the bidding rules, was challenged by a rival consortium led by Reliance Airport Developers. That development threatens to spark a lengthy legal battle. Then, thousands of employees decided to strike, leaving airports in a state of filth as passengers literally navigated through garbage.

And yet, the job did eventually get done. Better still, New Delhi stood its ground against the strikers. "There is no question of reversing the decision on Delhi and Mumbai," Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel said during the heat of the battle. And in the end, the four-day strike ended with the protesters winning little more than promises of job security that weren't much different from what was agreed to before.

Noting the popular support for reforms and liberalization in India. the Journal adds this tasty bit:

The local press went even further, venting its frustration against the Indian Left. "What is the price of allowing comfortably compensated, tenure-protected, work-wary state employees to define what should or should not be done? . . . Are we free market loonies simply because we want better services for which we are ready to pay?" seethed the Indian Express. The publication made the trade unions' position look even weaker by painting a picture of foreign visitors arriving at New Delhi's airport mid-strike and being greeted by darkness and filth.

When was the last time you saw a big city U.S. newspaper take such a strong stand against public employees unions? Kudos to the Indian Express!

The Falcon rocket will accomplish quite a bit more than just getting to space:

• It will be the first privately developed, liquid fueled rocket to reach orbit and the world's first all new orbital rocket in over a decade.
• The main engine of Falcon 1 (Merlin) will be the first all new American hydrocarbon engine for an orbital booster to be flown in forty years and only the second new American booster engine of any kind in twenty-five years.
• The Falcon 1 is the only rocket flying 21st century avionics, which require a small fraction of the power and mass of other systems.
• It will be the world's only semi-reusable orbital rocket apart from the Shuttle.
• Most importantly, Falcon 1, priced at $6.7 million, will provide the lowest cost per flight to orbit of any launch vehicle in the world, despite receiving a design reliability rating equivalent to that of the best launch vehicles currently flying in the United States.

More, including launch updates, here.

Baggage and passenger screening should be shifted to individual airports, with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) retaining regulatory control. Airports would be free to use TSA-certified screening companies or to hire TSA-trained screeners. This devolution — having the federal government delegate these duties — makes sense for at least four reasons.

All four reasons and more, right here, in Bob Poole’s USA TODAY piece.

Also check out Bob’s virtual exclusive busways piece (based on this study) in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal.

American technology entrepreneur Greg Olsen, Ph.D. successfully landed in Kazakhstan after a 10-day mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Dr. Olsen returned to Earth with the Expedition 11 crew, which was relieved after their six-month stay aboard the ISS.

More here.

Space Adventures organized the trip. More on the company here.

This amazing use of technology shows all the aircraft over a bunch of major airports. The detail avialable is incredible.

Try JFK or LAX or pick an airport.

As someone in the email chain I learned of this from said, "We really are an open society."

I have a reasononline article on NASA’s audacious new plan.

The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.

In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth.

…
Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, “My opinion is that it was. … It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible.” Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, “Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in.”

But now the space program is back on track, says Griffin. Apparently, we’re just supposed to let bygones be bygones and treat NASA like a mischievous little boy who's learned his lesson and can now be trusted:

[Griffin] announced last week that NASA aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018 in a spacecraft that would look like the Apollo capsule.

Maybe space entrepreneurs will already be on the moon to welcome the NASA crew.

Some background:

The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished — in 2010 or later — may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that.

Article here.

Recent, related article of mine here.

(And let's wait and see if Griffin issues a face-saving "this is what I really meant to say" statement.)

Space Adventures of Arlington, Virginia has sealed the deal on an exclusive marketing partnership with the Tokyo-based travel agency, JTB Corporation.

The agreement announced today opens wide the door for the Japanese to buy commercial treks into space and related experiences from Space Adventures.


JTB will market a wide array of programs available from Space Adventures, including the recently announced Deep Space Expeditions (DSE-Alpha) mission to the Moon -- the first in a series of lunar missions being offered. That mission could liftoff as early as 2008, according to a Space Adventures press statement.


The cost of trekking to the Moon, rounding it, and heading back to Earth is priced at a “circum-spectacular” cost of $100 million a seat, in U.S. dollars. Two commercial seats per would be available. More good news: A third seat is occupied by a pilot cosmonaut.

More here.

Meanwhile:

NASA’s next space shuttle will likely launch in March 2006 and not be the Atlantis orbiter as previously planned, space agency officials said Thursday.

More here.

For more on space tourism, go here.

Say the year is 2008 and you have a hankering for space travel. If you have 200 grand you can fly into suborbital space via Virgin Galactic. Then again, if you want to go all out you could throw down $100 million and take a trip around the moon:

One day after NASA brought the shuttle Discovery back from low Earth orbit, a private company plans to announce a more audacious venture, a tourist trip around the Moon.

Space Adventures, a company based in Arlington, Va., has already sent two tourists into orbit. Today, it is to unveil an agreement with Russian space officials to send two passengers on a voyage lasting 10 to 21 days, depending partly on its itinerary and whether it includes the International Space Station.

A roundtrip ticket will cost $100 million.

The space-faring tourists will travel with a Russian pilot. They will steer clear of the greater technical challenge of landing on the Moon, instead circling it and returning to Earth.

Eric Anderson, the chief executive of Space Adventures, said he believed the trip could be accomplished as early as 2008. Mr. Anderson said he had already received expressions of interest from a few potential clients.

Read more here.

For more on Space Adventures, see this interview.

Also interesting that The Spaceship Company, Richard Branson and Burt Rutan’s new venture, is apparently intent on expanding competition even more:

the company will build spaceships -- not only for Virgin Galactic and its initial order of five spaceships and two carrier craft -- but for other customers as well ...

Article here.

Rutan expects to see the day when suborbital space travel is comparable in price to a ritzy ocean cruise.

For more on private space flight, go here and here.

The space shuttle Discovery made a picture-perfect landing Tuesday in the California desert, capping America's return to manned spaceflight but also reviving the debate over the safety of the decades-old spacecraft.

Jarring the California coast with a pair of sonic booms, Discovery glided to a landing at 5:11 a.m. in the Mojave Desert.
…

But amid the cheers, aerospace experts said the glitches that dogged the flight — falling foam insulation, faulty sensors, protruding heat-resistant fabric, a torn insulation blanket — underscored the fragility of the shuttles and NASA's troubling inability to resolve fundamental safety problems.

They said the space agency had a long way to go before shuttle flights regained their routine status, a necessary hurdle before the nation embarks on President Bush's far more complex plan to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.

Article here.

The future of space flight can be found in the same desert where Discovery landed. The Mojave happens to be home to Burt Rutan and he and others like him will likely be the ones to reinvigorate space exploration.

For more, see this recent article of mine.

Also check out the Space Travel section of this year’s Annual Privatization Report (see esp. “The New Space Entrepreneur� on page 9).

And here’s an interesting article that compares the complexity of the shuttle with the simplicity of Rutan’s SpaceShipOne. Take, for example, the hatch:

The shuttle hatch swings out and requires complicated mechanisms to seal it for flight. The SpaceShipOne hatch has no moving parts and opens inward. It is held in place by the cabin pressure. He said it probably cost no more than a couple hundred bucks. Comparing it to the hatch on the shuttle is in part comparing apples to oranges, but does bring up a valid point about the value of a simple solution.

Here’s a chronology of Discovery’s troubles:

The space shuttle Discovery's flight was postponed from May to July because of concerns about ice buildup, and the July 13 countdown was halted because of a faulty fuel sensor. A look at the problems that Discovery's crew faced:

July 26: A chunk of insulating foam broke off the external fuel tank during launch but did not strike the orbiter. NASA suspended all future flights until the problem could be resolved.

Aug. 3: Two gap fillers glued between tiles on the orbiter's underside had come loose during launch, posing a danger of excess heat on reentry.

An astronaut removed the gap fillers during a spacewalk.

Aug. 4: A section of thermal blanket had pulled loose near the cockpit during launch. NASA engineers cleared the shuttle for landing after determining that the blanket posed a slim chance of breaking loose and damaging the orbiter during reentry.

Earlier this week the Investor's Business Daily ran an article of mine:

On the same day NASA grounded the space shuttle program, space entrepreneur Burt Rutan and billionaire Richard Branson announced the formation of a new company that will build suborbital spaceships, some of which will be used to start a private space flight business. That these two announcements were made on the same day is more than an interesting coincidence, it foreshadows the future trajectory of manned space exploration - one dominated, not by NASA and bureaucracies, but by entrepreneurs.

The whole thing's reprinted here.

This is particularly interesting in light of NASA’s long-delayed return to space and the strangely timed announcement that future shuttle flights will be grounded until officials can figure out why foam chunks keep falling off during liftoff:

British entrepreneur, Sir Richard Branson, has teamed up with aerospace designer, Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites to form a new aerospace production company. The new firm will build a fleet of commercial suborbital spaceships and launch aircraft.

Called The Spaceship Company, the new entity will manufacture launch aircraft, various spacecraft and support equipment and market those products to spaceliner operators. Clients include launch customer, Virgin Galactic—formed by Branson to handle space tourist flights.

The Spaceship Company is jointly owned by Branson’s Virgin Group and Scaled Composites of Mojave, California. Scaled will be contracted for research and development testing and certification of a 9-person SpaceShipTwo (SS2) design, and a White Knight Two (WK2) mothership to be called Eve. Rutan will head up the technical development team for the SS2/WK2 combination.

Interestingly, The Spaceship Company will build spaceships for other customers, not just Virgin Galactic.

Whole article is here; thanks to Don for the tip.

For my recent interview with Burt Rutan, go here.

And for Rutan's recent licensing headaches, go here.

Tom Bell has an interesting take on my recent interview with space entrepreneur Burt Rutan. (Go to Agoraphilia or The Technology Liberation Front). Basically, Bell worries that Rutan has cozied up to the regulatory state.

While I certainly agree with Bell on how space policy ought to proceed, I’m more optimistic that Rutan is—and will continue to be—a champion for market-based private space flight.

My interview didn’t show Rutan at his most laissez faire, but elsewhere he has been adamant about how government has sapped the innovative spirit out of space exploration. He wants private space flight to return to the early days of aviation, when bottom-up experimentation led to great progress.

Rutan has taken it to NASA and the FAA on many occasions (see here and here for example). And U.S. licensing requirements have frustrated Rutan even more.

BTW, make sure to check out the Air and Space Privatization Watch.

Burt Rutan is letting NASA have it again, this time at the International Space Development Conference:

He said the agency is wasting taxpayers' money on a deeply flawed space shuttle and paper spaceships that never get beyond the planning stage.

According to Rutan, NASA should get out of the human spaceflight business and leave the flying to the emerging commercial spaceflight industry.

Here’s a plan that would be a significant change to NASA’s contracting practices:

[A] space startup called Transformational Space stole the show with a full-size mockup of its proposed shuttle replacement.

Although Transformational Space, or t/Space, has chosen not to bid for the contract to replace the shuttle, the company nevertheless hopes to beat big aerospace companies to orbit with a four-person crew transfer vehicle, or CXV, that NASA can use to send astronauts to the International Space Station and beyond.

Instead of bidding for the full amount ($500 million) it needs to develop the ship, as the primes will do, t/Space is asking NASA for small increments of development money in exchange for achieving significant milestones.

NASA is sitting up and taking notice; the space agency has already awarded t/Space $6 million for developing the CXV concept and building flight-test hardware that Scaled Composites will fly this week.

T/Space's ship differs from those proposed by the primes in one other important respect: it will fly paying passengers. After supplying NASA with the ships it needs, t/Space plans to offer flights to anyone who can afford them.

But there will certainly be risks with private space flight. How will America react?

Space tourism is the prize most of the space entrepreneurs have their eyes on, and one of the biggest points of contention is how to safely fly well-heeled tourists and handle litigious relatives who don't take kindly to fatal accidents.

For Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic, the space tourism company started by Richard Branson last year, the best technology is obvious: a spaceship powered by a non-explosive mix of nitrous oxide and synthetic rubber launched from a high altitude airplane. This is the approach Scaled Composites used to create the world's first commercial astronaut last year, and the one that t/Space also champions.

But other companies, including Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, plan to fly passengers on good old-fashioned, two-stage rockets fueled by explosive kerosene and liquid oxygen.

That prospect keeps Whitehorn awake at night. If some garage rocket scientist blows himself up trying to get into space, the U.S. government may well put the brakes on the whole industry.

Whole story is here.

And here's Rutan taking on the FAA.

Both NASA’s space shuttle and Virgin Galactic’s passenger service to suborbital space have been delayed.

Virgin Galactic initially announced plans to launch its commercial space liner by 2007, but [Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic] now pegs its debut for 2008 or 2009.

NASA’s problems are technical in nature, Virgin’s fall under a different category:

It is not the technical issues, or even the financing, that is causing concern. It is uncertainty about US licensing requirements.

"At this point we are not able to even view Scaled Composites' designs for the commercial space vehicle," Mr Whitehorn testified before the House committee.

"After US government technology-transfer issues are clarified, and addressed if deemed necessary, we hope to place a firm order for the spacecraft," he said.

Whole story is here.

(Thanks to Don for the tip.)

See this related post.

I just came across a very interesting passage in a Time article from Nov 04.

The passage explains how Burt Rutan came up with the design that won the X Prize. There’s the exhilaration of the “aha!” moment followed by the inevitable skepticism from those who think he’s nuts (which is always so enjoyable in hindsight).

The market process is so often described as dog-eat-dog, hyper-competitive Gordon Gekkoism that it’s easy to overlook the creativity inherent in entrepreneurial discovery:

[G]etting a human into space is the easy part; it's getting them back that causes the real trouble. The friction of the atmosphere, combined with Earth's gravitational pull, creates an intense and deadly heat. The space shuttle solved this problem with millions of dollars' worth of tiles on its underbelly (although, as a shocked world saw last year, that system is not foolproof).

Rutan woke up one morning six years ago at his desert home in Mojave, Calif., with a heat-beating idea no one had considered before: Why not build a space plane with wings that hinge up at its highest altitude, creating a feathering effect so it floats gently back to Earth like a shuttlecock in a game of badminton? Rutan quickly sketched out his idea and started showing it around.

The reception was muted. Rutan was widely respected in the experimental-plane-building industry, having designed Voyager, the first aircraft to make it around the world nonstop without refueling, which his brother Dick helped fly into the record books in 1986. But the design for SpaceShipOne inspired near universal derision. "When I first saw it, I thought he'd lost his mind," says Mike Melvill, Rutan's oldest employee, longtime friend and faithful test pilot.

To Rutan, the raised eyebrows proved he was on the right track. "If you don't have a consensus that it's nonsense," says Rutan, "you don't have a breakthrough."

Quite a bit different than “Greed is good.”

Speaking before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Wednesday, SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan said the commercial space industry will thrive but the current regulatory system is need of repair and nearly destroyed his program.

Rutan was one a of a group experts in the emerging commercial space market to testify before lawmakers. Congress is attempting to define what role the government should or shouldn’t play in supporting entrepreneurial space progress.
…

“The airline experience has shown us that it is not just technology that provides safety but the maturity that comes from a high-level of flight activity,” Rutan said.

However, Rutan criticized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST), saying “the AST process, focusing only on the non-involved public, just about ruined my program.”

AST’s stated mission is to ensure protection of the public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during a commercial launch or re-entry activity and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation.

“It resulted in cost-overruns,” Rutan said. “It increased the risk for my test pilots. It did not reduce the risk to the non-involved public. It destroyed our safety policy of always question the product, never defend it.”

The regulatory process imposed by AST, Rutan continued, “was grossly misapplied for our research tests. And worse yet, is likely to be misapplied for the regulation of future commercial spaceliners.”

Here’s the whole article.

Here are more Rutan-related posts.

Seriously, are you surprised? If you've flown in the last three years you know what I'm talking about.

The Government Accountability Office found statistically significant evidence that passenger screeners, who work at five airports under a pilot program, perform better than their federal counterparts at some 450 airports.

A second report by the homeland security department further noted that TSA screeners performed no better in covert tests after a stinging assessment last year on failures to detect prohibited items at airport security checkpoints.

Oh, don't forget to leave your lighters at home...feeling safer yet?

According to the WaPo, the three-year old Transportation Security Administration is headed for a major shakeup:

The Transportation Security Administration, once the flagship agency in the nation's $20 billion effort to protect air travelers, is now targeted for sharp cuts in its high-profile mission.

. . . .

Under provisions of President Bush's 2006 budget proposal favored by Congress, the TSA will lose its signature programs in the reorganization of Homeland Security. The agency will probably become just a manager of airport security screeners -- a responsibility that itself could diminish as private screening companies increasingly seek a comeback at U.S. airports. The agency's very existence, in fact, remains an open question, given that the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security contains a clause permitting the elimination of the TSA as a "distinct entity" after November 2004.

Read the full article here. It adds the following bit of news on the public/private screeners front:

Last week, momentum accelerated in the push to replace federal screeners with private contractors at the nation's airports. FirstLine Transportation Security, a Cleveland-area private security firm, became the first company to win approval for liability coverage under the SAFETY Act, which means that if the firm takes over checkpoints, claims will be capped in the event of a terrorist attack. The move clears a major hurdle in the return of private screening companies. The law creating the TSA allowed for federal screeners to be replaced by private companies after two years.

Be sure to check out Reason's Aviation Security Resource Center for more on airport security and the debate over private screeners. Also, Bob Poole's latest aviation security newsletter has more on the Congressional discussions about the future role of TSA, along with several other news items of note.

(hat tip: Instapundit)

The California Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger honored the team of SpaceShipOne today in a ceremony at the State Capitol …

"California has a long history of conquering new competitive frontiers," stated The Honorable Andrea Seastrand, Executive Director of the California Space Authority (CSA), and a participant in the ceremony. "With experience honed in the early years of aviation, California ingenuity and intellectual capital was again on display with the success of SpaceShipOne's flights.

And here I thought Burt Rutan and his team designed, built, and flew SpaceShipOne into suborbital space:

Here’s the story.

JetBlue was once again ranked as offering the best service in an annual survey that also found five of the top six airlines are low-fare carriers.

AirTran Airways, Southwest Airlines and United rounded out the top of the national Airline Quality Rating study, released Monday.

Read on, here.

I just interviewed Burt Rutan, and here’s what he had to say about the importance of fun:

[Space tourism is] going to be a big industry. Just like personal computers. But it’s mainly just for fun.

You’ve got to have thousands, tens of thousands, of people enjoying it in order to figure out what to do with it. We never would have invented the use of the Internet, the communication, and the commerce, and everything if you had just a few dozen people with computers.

So I look at this suborbital phase that we’ll go through, and I think we’ll always have suborbital space flight, but I think the main thing is, is that people are going to flat enjoy it. And it’s going to be absolutely thrilling. They’re going to be floating their bodies around big cabins. It’s not going to be just like the SpaceShipOne flights. There’s going to be a lot more things you can do for the experience.

Read the whole interview here.

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

The government announced the indictment and arrest of space tourism and telecommunications entrepreneur Walt Anderson, accused of evading $200 million (euro151 million) in federal and local taxes, the largest U.S. criminal tax case ever filed against an individual.

Anderson, chief executive officer of Orbital Recovery Corp., was accused of hiding income by using offshore corporations in the British Virgin Islands and Panama and a mailbox in the Netherlands …

If convicted, Anderson could face up to 80 years in prison. Anderson's attorney, John Moustakas, did not immediately return a call seeking comment ...

In February 2000, Gold & Appel, Anderson’s investment concern teamed up with the Russia-based Rocket Space Corporation (RSC) Energia, the builders of the Mir space station, to form MirCorp, a company that was to operate Russia’s aging space station as a commercial venture, leasing the station for advertising, scientific research, pharmaceutical processing, satellite repair, even as a future Internet portal (complete with 24-hour views of Earth from orbit).

Whole story is here.

(Via ISIL.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Last January (yes, a year ago) the FAA announced the government's largest competitive sourcing study -- consisting of roughly 2,700 positions at 58 flight service stations across the country. Its getting ready to announce the results.

Regardless of who wins the competition, the FAA is planning on operating a streamlined organization with fewer employees because of efficiencies identified during the competition. Without knowing who has won the acutal competition, there already is one winner: the taxpayer.

To date the federal government saves on average $12,000 per position studied, regardless who wins. If averages hold, FAA could save upwards of $32.4 million.

Of the 2,700 specialists, as many as 1,000 have the experience necessary to apply for air traffic control jobs -- which comes as good news. The FAA is anticipating that nearly 11,000 controllers will retire in the next 10 years. In a 2003 Reason study, we called for the linking of competitive sourcing and strategic human capital managment to solve problems like these - where resources are not put to their most efficient and effective use.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persistent performance:

Space entrepreneur Burt Rutan has been averaging more than one new aircraft design every year for the past three decades.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, and now he’s working on SpaceShipTwo:

Rutan is toying with designs to accommodate up to eight passengers at a time, with enough upgrades to warrant a ticket in the £104,000 ($200,000) price range.

SS2 will be quite luxurious. Plenty of legroom and fully reclining seats, which will help elderly passengers handle the G-forces.

There’s also good news for the astronaut wannabes among us:

The mission now for his Mojave-based company, Scaled Composites, is to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.

For more on Rutan, go here.

Feeling pretty good about sticking with your New Year’s resolutions through day 4? Check out this model of persis