Data processing: financial – business practice – management – or co – Automated electrical financial or business practice or... – Reservation – check-in – or booking display for reserved space
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-29
2004-03-23
Rimell, Sam (Department: 2175)
Data processing: financial, business practice, management, or co
Automated electrical financial or business practice or...
Reservation, check-in, or booking display for reserved space
C705S005000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06711548
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is related to the field of airline travel and, more particularly, to an air travel flight scheduling system best accessed using a distributed computer network.
2. Description of the Related Art
Airlines evolved historically in a pattern reflecting pursuit of the largest identifiable market areas, i.e., the largest population centers from which the greatest number of potential air-travelers might be drawn. This resulted in creation of an airline system containing major “hubs” at major cities. In the process, airlines developed a similar form to that of the railroad industry where major rail heads and ports were interconnected by surface rail lines. Population concentrations had developed along routes where rail service became available. Rail lines attracted people and people attracted rail services.
Nevertheless, unlike railroads, aircraft are not confined to a road bed in choosing routes. They can fly a straight line from anywhere to anyplace. The economics of operating aircraft are highly sensitive to economy of scale. The larger the aircraft, the more economical its cost per passenger mile delivered. That results from a combination of both fuel economy and flight personnel required per passenger. However, to achieve that economy, these larger aircraft must fly with most of those seats occupied.
Flights between major hub airports offer greatest access to the largest pools of potential airline passengers. The greatest competitive pressures between airlines focus on obtaining rights to serve major hub locations.
While early evolution of these hub locations largely followed the locations of urban concentrations formed around rail heads and harbors, over decades a substantial portion of the population has become more widely dispersed as a result of the availability of highway transportation. Tens of millions of people live in communities that are neither rail heads nor hub airport locations. To serve these smaller cities, a system of “feeder” airlines developed. The principal orientation of feeder airlines generally involve connection between smaller communities and one of the established hub airports; for connections to other hub airports, and from which additional connections from a second hub airport to smaller communities could be made via additional feeder airlines.
Underlying all this development was orientation toward getting the maximum number of people on the largest aircraft available, with sufficient scheduled flight frequencies to provide a choice of timetables for accomplishing a given flight and making needed connections in a reasonable waiting time.
Speed of travel is the dominant attraction. Jet aircraft fly at twice the speed of prop driven aircraft. Arrival of the jet engine signaled the end to further development of larger prop driven aircraft. Most of that occurred before the advent of OPEC. Fuel efficiency was not as significant as speed, or labor. Since OPEC, fuel efficiency has also become a dominant concern.
Unfortunately, jet aircraft are only fuel efficient flying at high altitude and high speeds. During take-offs, landing, and taxiing, jet engines are notorious fuel “guzzlers”. On shorter haul flights, much of their operation occurs climbing to altitude, descending, and taxiing on the ground—all at low altitudes and slower speeds. In high air traffic density areas such as hub airports, additional time is spent “stacked up” at slow speeds waiting for clearance to land, and waiting in long queues lined up on a taxiway for clearance to take off, with engines idling.
Passengers desiring to fly from anywhere in Georgia to anywhere in the rest of the country must fly to Atlanta first. Passengers desiring to fly from anywhere in Ohio, southern Illinois, or Indiana to practically anywhere else in the country must first fly to Chicago. In the entire north central states region, travelers must fly to Milwaukee to get anywhere else. In addition to those for whom both origin and destination is someplace other than the locus of a hub airport, even those whose origin or destination is a hub airport still encounter half the waste travel and transfer flight delay time of those who must face it at both ends of a trip. As a result, on many trips, passengers must travel substantially longer total airline distances than the actual “line-of-flight” distance from the point of origin to the destination intended by the traveler. For example, to fly from Columbus, Ga. to Savannah, one must fly to Atlanta, and change planes for a second flight to Savannah. Each of these two flights is about the same distance as a direct flight from Colombus to Savannah.
More recently, major airline traffic losses have resulted from the number of passengers now taking advantage of short haul travel offered between smaller cities at lower fares, and at lower operating costs to airlines furnishing these services, using smaller aircraft. These smaller aircraft operators, often carrying 20-30 passengers, have already become large airlines themselves. They are still operating scheduled point-to-point travel services.
A survey of passengers arriving at hub airports would probably indicate that use of hub airports, as transfer points rather than trip destinations, is responsible for much of the air traffic congestion at hub airports. Air traffic congestion directly contributes to fuel wastage, both from time spent in holding patterns in the air while landing traffic clears, to time spent holding in long lines on the ground, with engines idling, awaiting take-off clearance.
For many passengers, itineraries require flying much farther than the airline mileage represented by “airline distance” from point of origin to intended destination. That additional mileage, even at jet transport speeds, is the equivalent or greater than a direct flight at slower speeds in terms of total flying time required. When waiting time at transfer points is added to flying time, average travel time in transit becomes substantially longer.
During Congressional hearings considering the launching of an American supersonic transport development program (SST) detailed analyses of what actually happens on a proposed trans-Atlantic flight trip were evaluated. A typical travel plan in those scenarios started with departure from home or hotel in New York City, a cab ride to Kennedy, check-in time prior to flight time, flight time from New York to Heathrow, customs clearance time in England, cab ride from Heathrow to London hotel or similar in-town destination, plus time spent for meals.
At the time of these hearings, the total elapsed number of hours from the starting point of origin in the first city to the ultimate destination in the second city, plus meal times for the number of meals normally eaten during that interval (whether served aboard the aircraft or eaten on the ground at either end of the trip) indicated that the time saved by use of SST aircraft was scarcely worth the cost and additional environmental problems incumbent to the launch of the program.
Congress did not approve the project. Lack of financial success of the subsequent British/French Concorde development bore out the accuracy of the earlier studies presented to the American Congress.
Obviously, much more is involved in most travel planning time allowances than the actual flying speed of the aircraft suggests.
A rather trivial approach to the concept of matching traveler need to flight options has been instituted by an effort to book luxury corporate jets as luxury travel charters, to allay part of the cost of ownership of luxury aircraft by making use of them when not in service by their owners. Its objective is substantially that of encouraging the purchase of such aircraft by those for whom their personal or corporate travel needs might not justify such ownership. Ownership shares are also being offered in expensive aircraft for those with no need for full time access to the use of such luxury accommodations.
Another approach, offering charter services via the Internet, proposed the
Jacobson & Holman PLLC
Rimell Sam
LandOfFree
Distributed computer network air travel scheduling system... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Distributed computer network air travel scheduling system..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Distributed computer network air travel scheduling system... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3292548