Postulating on Airline Travel Tradeoffs

Is the government onto something?

I just recently heard that in an effort to reduce nationwide air traffic congestion, the government is going to reduce the number of flights out of JFK.

Hmm. I wonder whether they'll actually improve more than they bargained for? What if they also reduced the flights out of Boston, Ohare, L.A., Minneapolis, Atlanta and Detroit as well?

Let's see how this might work. Here's the potential upside.

1. Fewer delays, both departure and connections.
2. Fewer empty seats per plane.
3. Fewer lost bags? (Fewer flights with which to mishandle luggage).
4. Less airplane maintenance costs per traveller.
5. Lower fuel costs/passenger.
6. Safer ground operations (fewer runway incursions because of fewer flights).
7. Safer air operations (reduced burden on air traffic controllers).
8. More predictable passenger loads leading to more predictable inventories for service items (lunches, dinners for sale).
9. Better crew scheduling opportunities.

On the downside.

1. Less departure/airline choice
2. Probably higher fares (less capacity, fewer choices).
3. Cancelled flights might be tougher to rebook (fewer options).

If the "upsides" came true, as a passenger, would you be willing to accept the "downsides"?