Actually the idea IS to emulate the paradigm of commercial aviation as much as possible, hence the use of 'standard' airbreathing engines and avoiding the use of highly specialized and specific launch infrastructure, (and frankly landing as well since a 'glider' doesn't inteact well with standard air traffic) by using the deeper, and broader air traffic system infrastructure. The airbreathing populsion system is used to move the vehicle from the "airport" to a place where it can light off it's rocket engine freely. At any point it can also be used to 'abort' to an alternative airport or emergency airstrip. Similarly when the vehicle is back from orbit and moving back towards a landing it has an airbreathing engine so that it does not interfere with the standard air traffic flow and take a place in the que for landing and servicing.
I'm going to point out that Steelpillow's "wire analogy" isn't really brilliant as it begins with the assumption that the vehicles have to be physically interconnected as the basis for the analogy. It's the 21st Century my dear sir have you never heard of 'wireless' operations? 
(Must have missed where FLOC came in, sigh, going back to read after this post)
Because that is what it would be. You specifically do NOT have a physical connection between the vehicle because doing so reduces their efficency and adds mass to the system. They ARE 'wirelessly' connected of course and are aware and constantly updated on each others position and because you don't have those 'physical' connections you also don't deal with the stress and aerodynamics that come along with them. They ONLY come together in order to transfer propellant beyond that they are seperate vehicles for the whole flight.
Yes there's some serious questions over SSTO capability and operational advantages, lord knows I'm one of the ones who doubts the rosy picture the advocates paint But as I noted before they DO have some points and they can be applied to near-SSTO vehicles as well. It is a unitary airframe that does not have to be 'integrated' with another airframe for launch and only 'interacts' above the nominal atmosphere in a free-fall arc. TPS, structure and other systems are lighter and easier to maintain this way. As a space station delivery vehicle the airbreathing engines give it unlimted range and endurance compared to a pure rocket powered vehicle, (and that's before we look into such engines as the turb-ram-rocket or Supercharged Ejector Ramjet for two examples) so chasing and matching a particular stations ground-track is vastly easier. Unitary means no ground mateing/demateing and associated support systems, while it may be more complex it will likely be smaller (which will cost less) and easier to work on. (Ya, tell that to the tech who has to be shoved into panel D-1A to rewire cannon plug CR-21 on his back with all the tools and wire sitting on his chest and only about 3 inches to work with... No, what makes you think I've had to do something like that? ) As a near-SSTO it doesn't have to be as optimized and light weight as an SSTO does and bonus it likely carries more playload as well. Probably not as much as an optimized TSTO vehicle but then again, (and this may be just me) but I'm pretty sure that taking 10,000lbs into space once a week or more can have more effect on some costs than going once a month with 100,000lbs specifically for things like space station support supplies. Twice a week is better an four times a week even more so of course.
Blackhorse in its original incarnation wasn't really even a 'near-SSTO but had some similar advantages, funny thing was both Zubrin and Clapp actually missed some opportunites and concepts because they stuck so close to the initial concept. The basic idea of the sub-orbital refueling concept accepted that both Blackhorse vehicles would remian the same but really the fact that they added airbreathing engines in and of itself had a more far reaching effect than they assumed.
Randy
