Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO; We'd Rather Cancel A Flight Than Run A Delay  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25400 posts, RR: 49
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14642 times:

No surprise but the fall out from the DOT rules regarding extended delays is that airlines rather cancel a flight then potentialy risk long tarmac delays and subsequent fines.

We've seen this in with the recent winter storms, but here the CEO of Continental Jeff Smisek comes out openly about their approach.

Quote:
Continental CEO will cancel flights before fines

DALLAS — Continental Airlines plans to cancel flights rather than risk stiff fines under new federal rules designed to punish carriers for delaying passengers.

Under a Transportation Department rule, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if planes are delayed three hours and passengers can't get off.

Smisek said at an investor conference in New York that long delays are rare, and mostly caused by an outdated air traffic control system that the government has failed to upgrade.
Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."

Because airlines have cut flights, leaving the remaining ones more crowded, passengers will have fewer chances to rebook on another flight. Passengers, he said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

Full story
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...YA-I5vkpgolG7bd_8wi6pEWXAD9EB7Q2G2

I cant blame the airlines, and sadly it will be consumers that end being punished by a governmental knee-jerk policy.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
141 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14536 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Full story
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...YA-I5vkpgolG7bd_8wi6pEWXAD9EB7Q2G2

I cant blame the airlines, and sadly it will be consumers that end being punished by a governmental knee-jerk policy.

Exactly...and then we'll probably see another poor govt. knee-jerk policy (i.e.-refunding cancellations or providing hotels/vouchers, etc.).

These govt. officials are so far behind the curve its gotten absurd.

I also agree that the air traffic control system is outdated. Its one of the most antiquated systems in the modernized world.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 785 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14508 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):

I agree completely. Do the math on 2 full 764s sitting on the tarmac. I would do the same if I was in charge. Granted it doesn't happen very often that flights would be cancelled. That's why not too big a deal..in my opinion. Customers will be the ones to suffer. If it's weather related, one could have another $600 hotel bill on top of their expenses already.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14429 times:

This story brought to you by the "Be Careful What You Wish For" department....

I hope the Passenger's Bill of Rights crew are happy. Because I certainly won't be when I have to arrive at my destination a few days late rather than a few hours, after spending several nights in hotels at my own expense.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14371 times:

Doesn't Europe have similar rules? I would like to know what the experience has been there.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25400 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14332 times:

Will be interesting to see what the mood is in a few months after many more consumers have suffered cancellations then would have ever been subjected to potential tarmac delays.

Atleast for me, I'd rather get to my destination incurring a tarmac delay, then be sitting needlessly back at my origin.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

This story brought to you by the spoiled brat airlines.

Seriously, to somehow claim it's just fine to leave pax trapped inside an aircraft for 4 hours, and because they are no longer allowed to do so, that the only alternative is to cancel and screw over said customers, is a brat response.

Find a solution. "I'm taking my ball and going home" is not a solution.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14185 times:

Folks, the fines only apply if you leave the PAX on the airplane for more than three hours. The easy solution is to just return the damn thing to the gate, not cancel the flight entirely - especially since the latter action entails...returning the plane to the gate. This is just a typically petulant reaction of a corporation against what it sees as unnecessary regulation.

User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How funny, I thought there were other options between holding passengers hostage for over three hours and canceling a flight, like, I don't know, maybe going back to the terminal and letting passengers off for a few hours without actually canceling the flight! I do realize that it may result in crews timing out without getting anywhere every now and then, but it certainly won't be systematic, and that problem might be partly alleviated by airlines not scheduling more flights at peak times than an airport can handle, like, I don't know again, maybe EWR. Not to mention the fact that if it happens at a hub, they can always bring in a reserve crew.

We can argue over whether the threshold should be at 3 hours or 4 hours, whether it should be static or based upon the flight's length, but it just plain BS to claim that the passengers who have recently been stuck overnight on a plane really, really, really, wanted to get to their destination rather than get off the plane. If CO has enough information to believe the flight should be canceled because there's a high risk of an extended delay, CO has enough information to delay boarding or bring the plane back to the gate...

I like CO but this is just another company using government regulations as a scapegoat.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
These govt. officials are so far behind the curve its gotten absurd.

Yeah, because airlines were very good at policing themselves and not holding passengers hostages for hours on end. h wait, nevermind...



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14101 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Find a solution. "I'm taking my ball and going home" is not a solution.

The solution is there - put slots on the airports. But that will bump up costs, which will end up getting passed on to the passengers, and they don't like that.

So instead we get this policy, which will end up hurting passengers much more in the end.

But what's really important is how often these ground delays happen. How often do airlines keep passengers on airplanes on the ground for four hours? Somehow, I suspect it isn't that often. If someone could show me statistics to the contrary, great. But until then, I'm of the mindset that a mountain is being made of a molehill.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14063 times:

Isn't canceling a flight the same thing as a delay? I mean, one way or another, the pax will still be delayed getting to their destination....


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17509 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14022 times:

Big surprise. An airline can either cancel the flight and blame weather and not compensate anyone, or potentially drop $3MM in fines on a plane load of passengers. Everyone can thank that stupid cow Kate Hanni and the US government.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):
I like CO but this is just another company using government regulations as a scapegoat.

Every airline would do this. Every rational human being would do this given the choice.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Will be interesting to see what the mood is in a few months after many more consumers have suffered cancellations then would have ever been subjected to potential tarmac delays.

It's not like airlines "hold hostage" passengers for fun. It's definitely something to be minimized. But thanks to the government and idiots like Hanni, instead of inconveniencing a couple hundred people per month with long tarmac holds, now it's a couple hundred per day.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Seriously, to somehow claim it's just fine to leave pax trapped inside an aircraft for 4 hours, and because they are no longer allowed to do so, that the only alternative is to cancel and screw over said customers, is a brat response.

Find a solution? That would require the government actually adressing the problem rather than this knee jerk nonsense. The airlines said this would happen, and it is. You would do the same if faced with the alternative of a potential multmillion dollar fine or cancelling a flight.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13977 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
This story brought to you by the spoiled brat airlines.

Seriously, to somehow claim it's just fine to leave pax trapped inside an aircraft for 4 hours, and because they are no longer allowed to do so, that the only alternative is to cancel and screw over said customers, is a brat response.

Find a solution. "I'm taking my ball and going home" is not a solution.
Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
The solution is there - put slots on the airports.

The solution is the government invest in a modernized ATC system, that allows for more departures per hour in bad weather. The solution is building more runways, that increase capacity and decrease congestion.


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6324 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13977 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):
Isn't canceling a flight the same thing as a delay? I mean, one way or another, the pax will still be delayed getting to their destination....

Not really. A delay means that it goes eventually...a cancellation means that it is never going (that flight on that date is never going)


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13977 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
No surprise but the fall out from the DOT rules regarding extended delays is that airlines rather cancel a flight then potentialy risk long tarmac delays and subsequent fines.

How about getting the passengers off the plane? That is what this is all about. Put them in the terminal instead of waiting out on a taxiway.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13941 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
knee jerk

Years of incidents without the airlines doing anything about it led to this measured and long debated rule change. It's hardly knee jerk.

I think 3 hours is a compromise. I don't want to be sitting on an apron for 2 hours, let alone 3, so it's not draconian in my book.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinecontrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13857 times:

I'm not happy with Smisek's statement. Now he's started something. I wish he'd just kept quiet.

I don't believe the airlines should keep pax on the plane for hours on end when there's a delay. I don't think many will disagree with me on that. However, now that Congress has stepped in that won't happen, as the airlines will cancel the flight as soon as it appears that takeoff will be delayed for a significant period.

The airlines must share some of the blame for this mess, as commercial aviation - which I once thought was the grandest way to travel - has become little more than an airborne bus service. Sure, it has its convenience. I can get to the west coast in 5 hours or so, instead of several days it would take by land. But it isn't very grand anymore.

Congress must share some of the blame also for being so STUPID. Did they really believe that by passing a law that everything would suddenly be resolved? Yes, they did! Congress believes that almost any problem can be solved by 1) throwing money at it, 2) passing a bill, or both.

Finally, pax have to share at least some of the blame, because we - and I include myself in this - expect too much when we fly. All we should really expect is a seat, a seat belt, and flight attendants to tell us what to do in an emergency. That's really all we're getting now.

There have always been weather delays, and as long as we're flying in this world there always will be. Not too many years ago the airlines would have taken care of their pax, and the pax wouldn't have complained. But no more. Now Congress has to stick their noses into it. Well, so be it. I guess soon we'll see an amended "bill of rights" calling for compensation when a flight is canceled. And Congress will respond again, and then . . . .

Well, I think you get the idea.

[Edited 2010-03-09 11:57:20]


Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlinebeertrucker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13859 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
How about getting the passengers off the plane? That is what this is all about. Put them in the terminal instead of waiting out on a taxiway.



Yeah easy lets let them off the plane. Now everyone goes to get food at the food court. Now the Captain gets word they need to leave now or they miss a window that just opened up. Well now you need to find all the pax from the flight and now do the boarding over again. opps that takes almost2 hours to get everyone back through security and re boarded. So now they push and get out there and they missed the window. Now do you go back the to the gate again and take tha chance. You all think it is such a great solution in just letting pax off the plane. From a Pax point of view it is great. From an Airlines point of view it is a nightmear.

Now also what if you were on the tarmack and can't take off but planes can land (ATC hold) Now all the gates are full of planes and how are you suposed to go back to the gate when there is not one to use.

People forget how long it taks to board and collect people. Sorry all I with the airlines on this point of view.

Unless you work for the airlines and see the back workings you will never understand or see the point of why the airlines do what they do.

Yes it sucks and I get pissed too when it happens to me but you know what in the end you know who i blame. no one else but mother nature who you can't control.

[Edited 2010-03-09 11:50:38]


Fly HI
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25400 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13848 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Find a solution. "I'm taking my ball and going home" is not a solution.

So what is the solution that you recomemend?

Only viable I see is to improve the nations ATC capacity. You have airports like NY with ATC routing choke points that get closed off with a few clouds.
The answer is not for airlines to modify hubs, reduce schedules, add slots. All those will hurt the consumer and reduce flight and connectivity choices.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):
I thought there were other options between holding passengers hostage for over three hours and canceling a flight, like, I don't know, maybe going back to the terminal and letting passengers off for a few hours without actually canceling the flight!

Sure go back, and loose that spot in line for take-off. Returning to the gate hardly solves the back up issue, and puts you back to square one before you departed.

Also the minute the plane blocks back in or the doors open you open a whole new can of worms with crew legalities.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
I think 3 hours is a compromise. I don't want to be sitting on an apron for 2 hours, let alone 3, so it's not draconian in my book.

So you rather comeback to the gate and sit around for even more time(and potentialy cancelled now) then tough it out and actualy get on your way by making your way down the take-off conga line?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13749 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4):
Doesn't Europe have similar rules? I would like to know what the experience has been there

I don't know what the rules in Europe are, but I do know that slots are a lot more prevalent, and Europe doesn't have the sort of nasty and long-lasting convective weather that the US does.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
I don't want to be sitting on an apron for 2 hours, let alone 3

Assuming that you've got drinks, snacks and working a/c, what is the difference between sitting on a plane on an apron for two hours and sitting on a plane in the air for two hours? Why is one okay, but the other is complete anathema (not just undesirable)?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13730 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
The answer is not for airlines to modify hubs, reduce schedules, add slots. All those will hurt the consumer and reduce flight and connectivity choices.

I think the answer is a little bit of both. First, the FAA needs to modernize the system. There's no excuse for the current system we have now.

However, even with the most modern ATC system, there are still going to be severe delays at times because of poor scheduling practices. The airlines have flooded some routes with unncessary levels of frequency and this needs to be fixed in the long-term. Thankfully, I think rising energy prices may eventually solve some of the problem for us.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17509 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13658 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
Only viable I see is to improve the nations ATC capacity.

Sure, right after a viable, actual attempt at health care reform, immigration reform, tax reform, and education reform  
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
Sure go back, and loose that spot in line for take-off. Returning to the gate hardly solves the back up issue, and puts you back to square one before you departed.

   another reason why canceling is so much more appealing

Quoting beertrucker (Reply 17):
You all think it is such a great solution in just letting pax off the plane

   As if it letting people off actually solves a problem, ANY problem. All it does is extend the delay.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13592 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
So you rather comeback to the gate and sit around for even more time(and potentialy cancelled now) then tough it out and actualy get on your way by making your way down the take-off conga line?

You are painting only one picture.

This is not just about "conga lines" but also about sitting, doing nothing, for hours.

But yes, I would rather come back to the gate and walk around and get something to drink and eat. I am 6'3", and doubling my time sitting in a commuter aircraft, for example, is not worth it to me.

Now, if I'm flying international F, they will let me watch movies while lying down and give me food and drink, so who cares. That happened on QF during a 2 hour delay. But it's not always going to be that pleasant.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13517 times:

What prevents an airline from pulling back to the gate when they see there's a delay of 3 hours pending? Or, what prevents an airline from not pulling out of the gate at all when a major delay is likely?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13472 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 22):

But yes, I would rather come back to the gate and walk around and get something to drink and eat. I am 6'3", and doubling my time sitting in a commuter aircraft, for example, is not worth it to me.

...but as others have mentioned, ostensibly its probably not even practical for the airlines. Yes, I think airlines can do a little bit more to help the pax out....ie..such as giving some drinks (EK tends to give drinks, etc. even if the flight is delayed by 20 minutes), letting pax stand up and "toil around" for a little while. However, improving the infrastructure would have a much, much more improvement of the situation.

I would rather sit on a plane for 3-4 hours and get to where I need to than having my flight canceled...



"Up the Irons!"
25 toobz : _ D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8195 posts, RR: 54 Reply 23, posted Tue Mar 9 2010 12:16:17 your local time (2 minutes 11 secs
26 Tugger : So you are advocating for requiring that airlines stock the aircraft with enough food/drink to allow for a three hour (or longer) delay? Airlines wil
27 Post contains images LAXintl : Indeed - but getting out of line, you just made your chance of departing even less. In theory you could be #1 in line to depart once things get going
28 MaverickM11 : You get enough of those ditched passengers and they'll create some Congressional pressure group to fine airlines that leave passengers behind. I thin
29 LAXintl : As far as those missing passengers -- that could be a whole new can of worms from a security point of view and require fishing their bags out, or even
30 D L X : I'm sure both coming back or bussing people back to the terminal (if there was no gate available) would be less expensive options than accepting the
31 Mir : The current rules give the airlines no incentive to treat their passengers well - regardless of whether they give them all the food and drink they wa
32 junction : This practice was already put into effect last month during the east coast snow storms. Most airports remained open, but B6, CO, DL, US, etc. one by o
33 Lowrider : How many "pictures" do you expect there to be? Given the following constraints: 1. Limited gate, ramp, and terminal capacity 2. Limited crew flight a
34 MaverickM11 : How much do you think it costs to ferry a flight? If the fine is $27K per person, you can probably get a 319 across the US no problem. That's for one
35 Post contains links CYatUK : EU has introduced rules that aim to ensure that passengers are treated well and are compensated when delays and cancellations occur. The compensation
36 Post contains links tonymctigue : Such a system does exist in Europe but as far as I am aware, it does not involve fining the airlines but rather compensating the passengers by refund
37 joecanuck : Putting all the blame for delays on ATC is total crap. Some airports like JFK can barely handle the slots they have now when the weather is perfect. I
38 LJ : If an airline in the EU would have a similar policy than it would cost them a lot of $$$$$$. Cancellation at the last moment means paying each pax at
39 D L X : You only get fined when the passengers are held on the plane. So, if the plane can't fly, bring it back to the gate (or airstairs) and let the passen
40 tonymctigue : Very good point. Any regulation that makes it more economical to cancel a flight than to delay it even for a very long period will cause far more dis
41 beertrucker : Ok think what you just said. How many people are really going to listen to that for one. and 2 even if you tell them to to wait and they do. you stil
42 Post contains images Tugger : Well if you have to be concerned about that then you can't do anything. Airlines can't change schedules, add fees, CANCEL flights..... No it wouldn't
43 Crosscheck007 : God, when are people going to understand that it is not that easy? In an airport like JFK, LGA, or EWR, going back to the gate would essentially equa
44 Surprise : [quote=blueflyer,reply=8]How funny, I thought there were other options between holding passengers hostage for over three hours and canceling a flight,
45 Post contains images lightsaber : Nor can I. They have been given a scenario... Let's face it. There should be ATC contact to let the airlines know that planes will not be getting off
46 seabosdca : ...assuming you have a gate or even a hardstand. The same circumstances that lead to long ground delays are likely to lead to more planes than gates
47 TVNWZ : I would rather sit in a hotel and make other arrangements than to sit on the tarmac for four hours. There were plenty of things the airlines could ha
48 ouboy79 : Wow really? Some people here would rather wait on the aircraft for over 3 hours on the tarmac instead of deplaning? I'm sorry. The aircraft should nev
49 fsnuffer : How about figuring out a way to predict when the aircraft can take off then load the pax one hour prior. As it is right now, they load you up, take yo
50 junction : These are two very good reasons why they should just cancel the flight instead.
51 Lowrider : Simple, the vast majority of airports never did it. If they had you would not see them hemmed in on all sides by residential areas clamoring for nois
52 Post contains images D L X : Because I did my thesis on aircraft scheduling and fleet placement so I'm not an idiot on this topic. I might be out of date since I haven't touched
53 MaverickM11 : Why don't you give an airline your bank routing number, and tell them to try their luck and see if they'll be charged the full amount. It wouldn't su
54 LAXintl : Tell that to the TSA. If a passenger disappears, the situation has to be dealt with. Flight cant simply depart without complying with security mandat
55 D L X : Well, maybe this will cause airports to build facilities to allow offloading passengers. (or airstairs) No one wants to answer this: are you going to
56 rolypolyman : If I Ran the Damn Airline, I would negotiate this with the DOT. At each airport I would have a "assault team" consisting of mobile stairs and baggage
57 ABQopsHP : I dont see this as governtment knee jerk action. The law of unintended consequences comes into play here. This is what happens when there was this dem
58 Lowrider : Never happen with existing laws. 1. You would need to acquire space beyond the boundaries of current airports. Look around LGA, JFK, EWR, PHL, DCA, L
59 IADCA : Yes, but canceling the flight takes you out of the departure queue too, and doesn't exactly help connections either. Fine, but the airlines are respo
60 Crosscheck007 : Just because the people want to go doesn't mean the airplanes are going to go. I have had 10 aircraft sitting on the ramp, and none of them left that
61 ABQopsHP : Ok heres a question. Are the airlines scheduling gate space tightly because they want to run it that way? Or is it because there is a supposed demand
62 wn676 : What happens when the ramp is closed due to severe weather? Had that happen to me a couple times in PHL, we pushed expecting to be off before the stor
63 Crosscheck007 : Case in point:
64 joecanuck : WTF happened to airlines planning based on efficient usage of existing resources? It is insane to base usage on infrastructure that may never come in
65 Post contains images lightsaber : So true. It is not as if people didn't know those airports were there before! It seems to be gone. But if I were in charge of the bulldozers (and did
66 D L X : I'm responding to your comment that sometimes it is simply beyond your control. If you're saying it's beyond your control to leave passengers on a pl
67 EWRCabincrew : All the airlines do/will be doing this. CO has just been more public about it.
68 commavia : Some people (mostly clueless politicians) want to complicate this and make it so much more difficult than it is. In reality, it's actually quite simpl
69 Crosscheck007 : In situations where the ramp is shut down, yes...it is. If a lightning storm parks itself overhead and it isn't safe for the ramp to come out and air
70 joecanuck : What needs to happen is slot regulation. Since airlines have proven that they will offer unrealistic schedules if allowed to, then each airport must
71 Mir : That would mean a means of accurately predicting where a storm is going to be at an exact time, and we don't have the capability to do that yet. -Mir
72 WNCrew : I don't disagree with you, but I think it's fair to say that in some situations you could replace the words "The airlines blame everybody...." with "
73 CWAFlyer : And when weather changes, then what?
74 commavia : The traveling public wants to travel when they want to travel. Is it JetBlue's fault that people prefer to fly out at 5pm after their meeting? Is it
75 D L X : You adapt.
76 Post contains images commavia : Wow. It's that easy? Why hasn't everyone been "adapting" up until now?
77 D L X : I see you are being sarcastic, so I will respond in kind. No one has been adapting to this policy because it was just instituted.
78 Post contains images lightsaber : We've gotten off track. We're mostly talking about airports that have bad weather releated delays. Of course a heavily congested airport will have mor
79 Post contains images MaverickM11 : and unfortunately you throw a moron like Hanni into the mix that thinks "I'm a victim ergo I'm an expert" and you've turned a rare situation that air
80 Post contains images beertrucker : Best post i seen yet.
81 sirloin : I'm in agreement that some of the problems with scheduling fall with the traveling public who demand frequency above all else. If they didn't absolute
82 PSU.DTW.SCE : Agreed, no one likes these situations - the passenger, the crew, the airline. They don't purposely try to have people sit out there for hours. But at
83 joecanuck : Blaming the customers is a lousy way to do business and a great way to lose business. Customers are why business's exist. It's convenient to look at
84 Lowrider : These two things are not inexorably linked. Airlines do not own airports any more than trucking companies own the highways. If a highway becomes too
85 Post contains images PGNCS : Oh, where to start? It doesn't work. People are scattered everywhere, you end up with kids on the plane and their parents in the terminal and vice ver
86 Pellegrine : I'm glad I will be sitting at home or in a hotel, and not on a cramped airplane. I don't really care what the corporate interests of the airline want.
87 frmrCAPCADET : And who will pay for all this. Airlines and passengers don't want to, and why should the non-flying public have to? Something along this line seems p
88 MSYPI7185 : Two different senarios. You will have excessive delays and security issues with baggage left behind and on board the aircraft. The fact that you are
89 Pellegrine : Haven't flown WN since Q1 2005, not that I wouldn't, I just fly UA/US domestically. Also, it's not my problem if I buy a ticket on a carrier and then
90 PSU.DTW.SCE : The local media here in DFW is all over this story this morning, trying to paint CO as the "big bad evil airline, always out to screw the passenger."
91 WNCrew : Of course when it comes to customer service you shouldn't make a habit out of "blaming customers" I think everyone knows that.. but if there's respon
92 MSYPI7185 : I only mentioned WN because of their lack of interline agreements with other carriers, so if you are on a WN flight and something goes awry, you will
93 D L X : Only if they make you stay on the plane during the delay. The trick is figuring out how to prevent people from being stuck on the plane, or getting p
94 lightsaber : I agree with that. But there is another issue. Due to the lack of infrastructure growth the new entrants have no chance at the slots normally either.
95 MasseyBrown : All the papers do it. For some reason (shared experiences?) people love to read airline horror stories.
96 Post contains images dairbus : You can bet good money that this is exactly what is going through the mind of every airline manager today. Continental is just the first airline to s
97 MSYPI7185 : I understand what your saying. If the airport is closed and there are no arrivals, you would not have been loaded onto the aircraft to begin with. Th
98 flyinryan99 : I couldn't not chime in. You said you did a thesis on aircraft scheduling 10 years ago. Did this include irregular operations? One thing that I see y
99 brilondon : Well at least you wear't flying on a ERJ-145 or worse a 120 and had to sit and wait for four hours.
100 ouboy79 : Really? I thought the discussion was about aircraft leaving the gate and sitting on the tarmac for hours on end before taking off? If they were never
101 D L X : I think we understand each other correctly here, and do not disagree that you have a problem when the crew times out. But correct me if I'm wrong (be
102 PSU.DTW.SCE : The way I see it there are 3 common situations that cause for long delays on the ground. 1) Post-Landing: Airport does not have sufficient resources (
103 Slider : It is a response, but not a long term solution. Maybe the myopic government will realize the law of unintended consequences goes a long way. I keep h
104 LAXintl : Yes Part-91 non-revenue ferry flights can operate outside side several regular FAR duty limitations. Also important to note, that from a crew schedul
105 MSYPI7185 : We are reading the same thread, maybe we are not on the same page. I have never in my 20 yrs ever had a flight push of the gate knowing that there wo
106 frmrCAPCADET : This is quite believable, they are doing the same thing with our Soc. Security money. It would be useful if someone could provide some documentation
107 Bennett123 : What is unclear, is just how common is this in the US. I have not flown a massive number of flights, but have never sat for 3 hours on a stationary pl
108 DCA-ROCguy : Maybe one can be less critical of the public, who doesn't know the details of how the airline industry operates. But shame on "passengers' rights" ad
109 BAW2198 : nope, the air traffic system is not antiquated or outdated. What we have here is a classic case of too many airplanes trying to get to the runway at
110 FlyPNS1 : Actually, there are virtually no airport projects that are "shovel ready". It takes years of planning and approvals to build anything meaningful on a
111 WNCrew : I don't know how long it would have taken you. I CAN say, we pre-cancelled MANY flights and then took those aircraft and put them in outlying cities
112 MasseyBrown : I don't buy the "no gate" excuse at all. If the delay awaiting a gate is going to be excessive, the airline had better be prepared to debark at a rem
113 WNCrew : ...and staff members to monitor the ramp, which depending on how far out the aircraft is, can be several people. Multiply that by however many aircra
114 Mir : Like you said in another thread: sounds like a problem with the media. Again, if anyone has statistics that say that the hellish delays aren't anythi
115 dartland : 605 flights in 2009. The worst offending airport was JFK with 169 flights. (these are flights delayed 3+ hours between gate and runway departure)
116 CuriousFlyer : Instead of cancelling flights when the weather is bad, CO should remove flights from it's schedule. And all other airlines should do the same when the
117 MasseyBrown : Yes, but how many times a month would a plane wait 3 hours for a gate. It wouldn't happen *that* often; and if it should, then that airline is doing
118 Slider : They already have! That’s what I noted earlier. Look at the number of flights YOY in any publicly available data set. They’ve gone below what the
119 mayor : It's EXACTLY about "conga lines". Imagine you're on a 757, in line on the taxiway, it's been almost three hours and you're the 3rd a/c in line. Would
120 Lowrider : It doesn't matter what you buy or don't buy, it exists. In addition, some airports prohibit embarking and deplaning outside designated ramp areas, ex
121 ouboy79 : I think the point is, it should never be allowed to reach that point. Prior to leaving the gate, the aircraft should be given their priority and expe
122 SHAQ : Is this a joke ? Fewer flights in an airline , in a competitive route (NYC-LAX, SFO and LHR) will only drive yields down , because the only ones that
123 Mir : What about the arrivals who are waiting for a gate? -Mir
124 MSYPI7185 : I just read an article in the WSJ. In the US last year there were about 900 flights that sat 3 hrs or more, per Mr. Crites who IIRC is the airport ma
125 Mir : That didn't hold up during the winter snowstorms in NYC, particularly around Christmas. Airlines did cancel flights, and boy did the passengers not l
126 BAW2198 : If you work for delta, check out last weeks loads on DAL740 SEA-JFK (departing march 5th). Departs SEA at 945pm arrives 0608am at JFK (boeing 757-200
127 CuriousFlyer : I'm getting it, no offense. The fact that they have to use their slots is not the issue, the issue is that there are too many slots at rush hours, ai
128 D L X : It's all about image. I'd be fine without the law.
129 brilondon : I have sat for almost two hours at DFW in a 737 due to weather on CO. Me and my friend have sat in a ERJ at YYZ due to weather again for 3.75 hours t
130 mayor : How many of those standbys were revenue and how many non-rev? Except for the fact that some of them may have indeed been non-revs, the standbys could
131 Slider : 900 out of how many total United States airspace system flights? But that's NOT the case, I'm telling you. Go look at the FAA's own developed capacit
132 FlyPNS1 : Yes and the FAA's capacity guidance and the number of slots allocated is based on perfect VMC conditions. Unfortunately, when conditions aren't so pe
133 CuriousFlyer : Yes it is obvious the authorities allow too many flights, them saying it is reasonable does not make it necessarily true! Flying from any NYC airport
134 iairallie : Um other airplanes, the amount of available gate space, remote parking space, employees and equipment is finite. Additionally you have crew legalitie
135 MSYPI7185 : Standby and Overbooking flights are not the same. Overbook flight = Pax with a CONFIRMED reservation for that particular flight. Standby = I need a s
136 DXing : 1. Most likely not. At a major hub once you push you can usually kiss the gate goodbye. 1a. Where is that gate going to come from? Gates are a finite
137 WJ : I actualy think it got the exact result the CO wanted. People are talking about this. His statement was in the news and from no coverage I saw in mai
138 N1120A : A nightmare to not leave people stranded in a tube on a runway? Riiiight. Tell the people in DTW that. Pull up the stairs and get the PAX back into t
139 RJ111 : If CO want to do that and risk losing valued customers then it's up to them.
140 PSU.DTW.SCE : Exaclty many times at a hubsite when delays start to really compound, ops will just wholesale cancel a bank of flights to essentially reset the opera
141 frmrCAPCADET : Another possibility when a major adverse weather system approaches is for a little cooperation amongst airlines. Passengers ought to be directed to an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CO Pilot Dies In Flight, BRU-EWR posted Thu Jun 18 2009 08:03:34 by Klwright69
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
CO's Early Out A Lot Worse Than UA! posted Tue Jun 10 2008 19:41:46 by Dutchflyboi
Can Someone At CO Clarify This BTA Flight? posted Fri Oct 26 2007 15:29:16 by Tomascubero
Need CO Registration For Yesterday Flight... posted Thu May 3 2007 17:48:12 by AA737-823
El Salvador Goverment Forces Copa To Cancel Flight posted Sat Dec 17 2005 20:54:27 by Luisca
CO IAH-EZE Inaugural Flight Tonight posted Wed Dec 14 2005 17:36:19 by MyOthrCarsA777
Will CO's EWR-DEL Be Better Than TG JFK-BKK? posted Wed Nov 2 2005 06:22:37 by Comorin
When Does A Ground Hit Cancel A Flight? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 20:33:32 by Dartland
Eads Co-head Says A380 Flight In April posted Thu Mar 3 2005 09:04:36 by Jacobin777