Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DOT Denies Air Carrier Delay Exemptions  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6353 times:

DOT today turned down the various air-carrier request for exemption of tarmac delay rules in NY and PHL, stating that granting such exemptions was not in the public interest.
The DOT however did offer an olive branch that if unexpected situations were to occur, the department has the appropriate prosecutorial discretion that can be applied with respect to potential enforcement actions.

Personally, I don’t see any airline however willing to take the costly chance of what the department might do downline and instead consumers can look forward to increased mass cancellations by airline rather than risk a lengthy delays.

OST-2007-0022


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19410 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6290 times:

The airlines can fly larger aircraft less frequently and avoid this problem altogether. I've said it over and over again: there is no reason why 50 separate aircraft need to fly from SFO to JFK/EWR every day when 15 VLA's could do the trick.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6205 times:

Doc, its been proven over and over, customers prefer frequency options over size.

With lets say 15 VLA's each carrier will only offer a handful of flight, which will leave big time gaps in their individual schedule offerings and opens the door to your competitor landing the prospective business. Additionally with larger capacity it becomes harder and harder to fill each individual flight day after day to profitability as you have huge number of seats to fill for each departure.

Look at history, the large widebodies are gone from our domestic skies in favor of A320/737/757 work horses.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6192 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
The airlines can fly larger aircraft less frequently and avoid this problem altogether.

That solution would only fix the problem if all other airlines also reduced frequency (or, at least, did not increase it). Why do you assume that this is so?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6130 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
The airlines can fly larger aircraft less frequently and avoid this problem altogether. I've said it over and over again: there is no reason why 50 separate aircraft need to fly from SFO to JFK/EWR every day when 15 VLA's could do the trick.

Amen..we have gotten so used to have almost "instant" flights on many routes, leaving every hour or even 45 min. This is nuts. For years we did well with few flights but using DC-10 or L1011 or DC8-71 on many routes. Now we have this parade of A320's and 737 on many of these same routes. Are we all so self important that we can't wait an additional hour or 90 min? The saving, over the years, of fuel alone has to be substantial.

I still believe that the airlines can save a lot of money, long term, by using more 764's,777,332/333 on trunk domestic legs of many trans ocean flights. ( ie; LAX-ORD-FCO, or DFW-LAX-NRT or whatever. And I'm sure Boeing would make some nice deals to build 50 or 60 more 764's..which was supposed to be the domestic DC-10/ L1011 replacement.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6099 times:

I think 3 hours on the tarmac is awefully generous, seeing how one can fly PHX-ATL in that same amount of time!

We're not talking about delays over 3 hours or even sitting at the gate for over 3 hours, we're talking sitting on the taxiway. If an airline incurs such a delay like that sitting out on the taxiway then they deserve to be fined.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6083 times:

look at norcal to socal.... that's just pure nuts

by the time you factor in SFO/OAK/SJC for norcal, LAX/BUR/ONT/LGB/SNA for socal, and every single permutation in between, plus number of carriers and frequencies, we're definitely flying too much here


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4488 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5913 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Personally, I don%u2019t see any airline however willing to take the costly chance of what the department might do downline and instead consumers can look forward to increased mass cancellations by airline rather than risk a lengthy delays.

  
The regulation is very ill-conceived and will only hurt passengers. That's what happens when the Feds let Kate Hanni make policy.

I'd bet a lot of DL and CO suits must just gnash their teeth anytime they remember RST. Had that media-perfect and IMO avoidable incident never happened, the gasoline of consumer/ regulatory unhappiness might not have burst into flame, so to speak, and the regulation might not have happened. Maybe another incident would have been the one to do it, who knows, but the fact is this one was. Historical particularity stinks sometimes.

Now airlines will pay millions for flight cancellations and related operational upheaval, and pax will pay millions for ruined vacation and business plans, so that airlines can avoid the risk of paying fines. The unintended consequences of taking away airlines' flexibility to handle delays--admittedly flexibility they at times abused--will IMO be substantial.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
That solution would only fix the problem if all other airlines also reduced frequency (or, at least, did not increase it).

  
That's the basic problem. Nobody's going to reduce frequency on competitive routes, because they immediately hand their competitors an advantage. Unless the Federal government were literally to tell particular airlines how many flights per day they could fly between particular airports, VLA's on transcon, a return of domestic widebodies, etc., however much fun they would be, won't happen. The market has spoken very clearly otherwise.

DOT's strictness on this policy request does not, IMO, bode well for DL-US's counterproposal on the LGA-DCA slot swap.

Jim


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the short term, airlines will probably have massive cancellations, but when Camp Kennedy becomes a permanent fixture full of stranded passengers because their 737 flight to the West Coast is repeatedly canceled, someone somewhere will hear a penny drop and put in a 767. It may be a painful adjustment, but adjust the airlines will.

As much as customers want frequent flights, I think it's likely they still prefer less-frequent flights over no flight.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
With lets say 15 VLA's each carrier will only offer a handful of flight, which will leave big time gaps in their individual schedule offerings and opens the door to your competitor landing the prospective business.

I don't agree that any individual airline might lose out that much in the process.

For every airline that cancels a flight at 10 am to put a bigger plane in on their 11 am flight, there's another carrier that will do the opposite. What will be hurt is loyalty. The 10 am customer will no longer choose to fly the airline with which he has status, he will fly the airline leaving at 10 am. Same thing for the 11 am customer.

For non-status customers shopping on price, well nothing changes really. Bigger planes, less choices, still one winner, the cheapest ticket!



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5866 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Doc, its been proven over and over, customers prefer frequency options over size.

With lets say 15 VLA's each carrier will only offer a handful of flight, which will leave big time gaps in their individual schedule offerings and opens the door to your competitor landing the prospective business. Additionally with larger capacity it becomes harder and harder to fill each individual flight day after day to profitability as you have huge number of seats to fill for each departure.

Then it's simply about time passengers adjusted THEIR schedule to suit when flights occur, and not the other way around when a flight is simply being used as a local bus on 'demand'. With the forthcoming cries from here, if that means so-called business traveller's have to adjust their schedules then that's just too bad. If they have to be somewhere at a given time then it is completely up to them how they manage to do it, not the current attitude of 'there should be a flight every 15 mins to suit me'. Until such changes are made, there will be absolutely no resolutions to the problem. So no, in such situations it will not be harder and harder to fill individual flights in the slightest.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
DOT today turned down the various air-carrier request for exemption of tarmac delay rules in NY and PHL, stating that granting such exemptions was not in the public interest.
The DOT however did offer an olive branch that if unexpected situations were to occur, the department has the appropriate prosecutorial discretion that can be applied with respect to potential enforcement actions.

Personally, I don’t see any airline however willing to take the costly chance of what the department might do downline and instead consumers can look forward to increased mass cancellations by airline rather than risk a lengthy delays.

OST-2007-0022

The cause of the traffic jams on the tarmac is easy to see. Look on the departure board at a major airport and you'll see a hundred flights scheduled to leave within a 15 minute period (especially popular times like at 6-7 PM)

All this is ridiculously easy to fix. Just like they do at major world airports, every airport will have X many slots available per hour, based on the number of runways usable simultaneously. If you only have one runway, you can have 30 movements per hour. Slots will be sold in a bidding process. No airline can schedule a flight for which they have not acquired a slot.

That way an airline that would like to schedule 10 ERJs per day for a certain destination, but can only get 5 slots, would be forced to use fewer, larger aircraft.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineontime From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5757 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 7):
That's the basic problem. Nobody's going to reduce frequency on competitive routes, because they immediately hand their competitors an advantage. Unless the Federal government were literally to tell particular airlines how many flights per day they could fly between particular airports, VLA's on transcon, a return of domestic widebodies, etc., however much fun they would be, won't happen. The market has spoken very clearly otherwise.

Would it be legal for the FAA to create takeoff priority for larger aircraft on certain routes, sort of like a car pool lane on the freeway? For example, could the government say that at LGA, any aircraft with 200 or more seats would be allowed to "cut" the takeoff line?

Because I agree with the above statement that frequency will win out, but if the airline with less frequency were allowed to market that it would suffer less tarmac delays, that might win customers, even business customers who might otherwise choose solely based on frequency. So United might choose to significantly cut back its LGA-ORD frequency, but operate with 767-300 aircraft which would always jump to the front of the line. You could even argue that this would benefit the airlines with smaller aircraft, since there would be less flights (and thus less congestion) overall.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3193 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5745 times:

The flying public will get exactly what's coming to them in the form of mass cancelations by enacting the totally asinine passenger bill of rights.

Now, instead of waiting on a plane for 3 hours, they won't get to their destination for possibly even days at a time. There, see what wonders the bill will do?!  



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5747 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
Then it's simply about time passengers adjusted THEIR schedule to suit when flights occur, and not the other way around when a flight is simply being used as a local bus on 'demand'. With the forthcoming cries from here, if that means so-called business traveller's have to adjust their schedules then that's just too bad. If they have to be somewhere at a given time then it is completely up to them how they manage to do it, not the current attitude of 'there should be a flight every 15 mins to suit me'. Until such changes are made, there will be absolutely no resolutions to the problem. So no, in such situations it will not be harder and harder to fill individual flights in the slightest

I guess you dont believe the customer is king, and business by its nature will try to accommodate its customers wishes to the greatest extend possible.

Reduced frequencies will certainly harm airlines as it will create time gaps during the day, leading to customers opting for a competitors flight.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
every airport will have X many slots available per hour,

Remember JFK does have slots.

Airlines are not operating a single more frequencies then allowed by the FAA.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5723 times:

Quoting Reply 11):
Would it be legal for the FAA to create takeoff priority for larger aircraft on certain routes, sort of like a car pool lane on the freeway? For example, could the government say that at LGA, any aircraft with 200 or more seats would be allowed to "cut" the takeoff line?

That would be difficult to implement. The way to force larger aircraft would be to implement slot auctions and flatten landing fees so that the difference between larger aircraft and smaller aircraft would diminish. However just about anything would hurt the commuter flights which have a lot of political support from the airlines and smaller communities.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5660 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 12):
Now, instead of waiting on a plane for 3 hours, they won't get to their destination for possibly even days at a time. There, see what wonders the bill will do?!

See the thing is, the passengers can be on the plane for more than 3 hours, provided they are at the gate and the door is open etc (correct me if i am wrong)

I know most folks on here and airlines are against it, but 3 hrs after pushback is unacceptable and indicative of a poorly run operation in my oppinion.

If there are 2.5 hrs worth of airplanes queued up, don't push off the gate, its pretty simple. The only airlines that will be adversly affected are the ones who overschedule their hubs vs airport capacity (I.E CO- EWR)



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 15):
provided they are at the gate and the door is open etc (correct me if i am wrong)

As long as you are onblocks the time clock does not tick. However as my question below, its not very helpfull to just sit at a gate.
(ps-I can see crew unions not allow this anyhow as most dont get paid to sit at a gate with passengers. They get paid once the plane is closed up, and on its own power)

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 15):
If there are 2.5 hrs worth of airplanes queued up, don't push off the gate, its pretty simple.

So when should the flight leave? If you don't venture out and go get in line, you surely will never get airborne.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 13):
Remember JFK does have slots.

Airlines are not operating a single more frequencies then allowed by the FAA.

That is simply not true. I just checked the JFK schedule, and there are 61 flights scheduled to depart or land at JFK between 4:55 and 5:05 PM. Considering that JFK has 2 runways that are windward at any one time, that means that JFK has a scheduled movement every 20 seconds on each runway. I don't think that satisfies safety concerns, especially since many of these flights are "heavies".

And I did not bother looking for the busiest time.

http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
That is simply not true.

You might want to tell the FAA.

The FAA has had quite a comprehensive slot program at JFK for several years now with airline frequencies and operating timings being limited. (I am well versed with it as one of my client airlines has had a hard time securing commercially advantageous summer timings as a result)

Only two weeks ago, as part of the JetBlue/AA transaction, JetBlue sold AA 12 JFK slots pairs, as AA currently is hemmed in and cant increase services due to lack of slot holdings at the airport.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
You might want to tell the FAA.

The FAA has had quite a comprehensive slot program at JFK for several years now with airline frequencies and operating timings being limited. (I am well versed with it as one of my client airlines has had a hard time securing commercially advantageous summer timings as a result)

So are you telling me that the FAA approves of a movement every 20 seconds per runway?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - we are talking about the federal government.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Here you can read a bit about the current program which was established in 2007.

Cover letter with scheduling targets
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/jfk_...t_reductions/media/JFK_Targets.pdf

Original DOT order, with airline and hourly slot holding summary
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...#documentDetail?R=090000648039b242



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):

Cover letter with scheduling targets
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/jfk_...s.pdf

There you go. On the first page it says that they are not allowed more than 81 movements per hour, 44 in 30 minutes and 24 within 15 minutes.

My example showed 61 in 10 minutes.

But as far as I can tell, these are targets, not law.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11431 posts, RR: 61
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

Good.

As I said in a previous thread, I think this is an all or nothing deal. I think the American traveling public should fully "enjoy" the "protections" that our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, have bestowed upon us.

Bring on the cancellations - it's inevitable now.

Should be an interesting summer flying in and out of New York.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24855 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
My example showed 61 in 10 minutes.

Your actual example vs.slot holdings are two different things.

How things play's out day to day can vary depending weather, enroute issues, airline issues, etc.. Remember planes are off schedule for a variety of uncontrolled reasons.

The point only X hourly arrival and departure slots are authorized per hour and thats how airlines build schedules which they sell to customers. Same that is done in LHR, FRA, NRT etc..



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
Your actual example vs.slot holdings are two different things.

Those are scheduled flights. How can you schedule a flight without a slot to put it in, if what you are saying is true?

I'm sorry but you are not making much sense.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 par13del : Technically that may have been true years ago when a/c actually left within minutes of each other. The statistics which may be good to look at is arr
26 B6JFKH81 : I brought up the information through your link, and you are correct. Between 1855 and 1905, I counted 71 departures schedule. However, if you look at
27 LAXintl : Fish through regulations.gov and look at the DOT slot holding records for this schedule season. You can match up flights one by one by airline. You f
28 pink77W : no reason why 50 aircraft fly from SFO to JFK? ......................FREEDOM......................
29 Tango-Bravo : Isn't it more like 10-15 RJs taking the place of 5-6 A320 and 737 mainline flights...or some such ratio? Even on such "regional" routes as ORD-DCA/LG
30 RL757PVD : How many times has anyone on here been stuck on the tarmac for 3 hours? I know after about 300,000 miles I know I have never come close, Im not sure
31 UAL747DEN : How can you say that? Flying too much for who? If the airline is continuing to fly the route it must be an okay deal for them, so what is the problem
32 Dreadnought : I did not think of that - I stand corrected.
33 WJ : This strong arming by the FAA that will affect both airlines and passengers is the absolute wrong way to go, not because of the impact, but because th
34 Mir : I think I've had one once, while a thunderstorm came and parked over JFK (aircraft was a B6 A320). We weren't sitting still for 3 hours, but it was o
35 SYfan100 : My thoughts on the topic on Late Flights like this are the following: The first biggest one is people to tend when talking to the media to over due wh
36 WJ : It's all nice in theory, but the fact is that if you limit a certain type of operation, smaller communities will lose service and tie in to NYC. They
37 Post contains images commavia : Precisely. If this is the public policy course of action that we want to pursue as a country, then fine - but again, we should then all be willing to
38 FlyPNS1 : It's extremely rare. In 2009, there were only about 700 flights with taxi-out times > 3 hours. Only about 5,000 flights had a taxi-out > 2 hour
39 RL757PVD : Exactly and I'd argue that probably 90% of the 700 were avoidable. and also 90% of those are at airports that aren't designed for the volume in which
40 DocLightning : Right, but when you're on one of those flights (and I've been on two) it's a big deal.
41 Dreadnought : My elderly mother was caught on the tarmac last year in Newark for nearly 5 hours. It's unheard of anywhere else in the world, and should not be acce
42 Chris777 : In my opinion the public or PAX don't see the whole picture here....scenario....after 3 houres of taxiing because of weather in the area " Ladies and
43 RL757PVD : Exactly... Newarks theoretical capacity is between 350,000 and 400,000 annual operations and they currently have 420,000. The airfield was not design
44 StuckInCA : Agreed. I fly relatively frequently for business, usually between SEA and somewhere in CA or other points in the western half of the country. VERY of
45 Aesma : Maybe after an hour taxi or even less, and no end in sight, was it already time to go back to the gate ? I saw my first queue at an airport recently,
46 727forever : You have hit the nail on the head. These delays are typically out in line for takeoff. How is the airline responsible for that if the FAA can't move
47 FlyPNS1 : You could have the most modern system in the world and these long delays would still happen since most occur during periods of severe weather. Bottom
48 RL757PVD : Its shared blame.... the airlines overschedule the airports, which places an unecesary burden on FAA However, the FAA needs to do a better job of iss
49 Flighty : But this is an emergent phenomenon. You would need a dictator to impose 15 VLA instead of 50 A320. Because the free market (which actually has logic
50 WJ : If the airports were a free for all I would agree, but how can you blame an airline for overscheduling an airport that is slot restricted and has a p
51 RL757PVD : Airport capacity isnt a set number and at many airports, the theoretical capacity changes with the wind direction (like EWR can process more airplane
52 Flighty : RIght, and yet the airlines will cry about "freedom this" and freedom that. They will decry the fact that a delay penalty will "reduce services to Am
53 adam42185 : I, personally, would rather have my flight canceled and try to get on a later flight, or spend another day in a city than sit on a plane on the taxiw
54 Kaiarahi : Why are they "so-called"? And guess who keeps the airlines in business in North America?
55 DocLightning : You raise a problem, not an answer. In fact, in many large cities, freeways ARE slot-restricted. There are metering devices that control the number o
56 LAXintl : Not me. I'd much rather slug it out and get to my destination then be stuck at the point of origin dealing with a cancelled flight or overnight, whic
57 Post contains images commavia : Not to mention that, in the extremely rare cases when your flight is cancelled after a 3 hr ground hold, the odds are that your flight isn't the only
58 Mir : Most passengers in the US have no problem taking the risk. They may not say it, but their actions prove it. I, however, will say it: I don't mind the
59 flyfree727 : They won't take the fine. They'll return to the gate and cancel the flight to avoid the fine. Have fun with that. AA ORD
60 JBAirwaysFan : That's why airlines have the power to change schedules, see? If they consolidate the 10 AM and the 11 AM flight, they will schedule the new flight at
61 RL757PVD : f there is a 2.5+ hour queue don't push off the gate, simple as that (this is where the FAA needs to do their part and issue gate holds). There were
62 Kaiarahi : And then the incoming aircraft has a 2.5 hour wait for the gate occupied by a gate-hold. It's a zero sum game.
63 flyingAY : All the discussion here points to a direction that there just is not enough capacity at the airports to solve the problem. If there is a problem. Bas
64 RL757PVD : Its called flow control... Airlines schedule airports and their facities for clear, calm sunny days, then their ops go to hell in a hand basket when
65 Post contains images B6JFKH81 : B6 has already started using it's new policy as of today that keeps them in compliance...and so the cancellations begin due to weather in NY. This sho
66 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Thanks for those numbers. If that's truly the case, we're talking about less than $20 million in fines spread out among all the airlines. (700 X $27,
67 LAXintl : Per violation in DOT government lingua de franca means per passenger. Each passenger whom is held beyond the 3-hour period is considered a single and
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...
DOT Denies US PHL-PEK Dormancy posted Fri Aug 7 2009 14:38:36 by MAH4546
FL Ranked Top Low-Cost Air Carrier By AQR...Again posted Wed Apr 8 2009 21:28:42 by CitrusCitrus09
EU Expands Air Carrier Black List posted Wed Apr 8 2009 16:23:56 by LAXintl
Branson MO Announces Second Air Carrier posted Wed Mar 11 2009 07:54:12 by Vivavegas
DOT Denies Blanket Dormancy Waiver posted Thu Jul 3 2008 15:14:11 by MAH4546
Top US Air Carrier Domestic City-pairs posted Wed Dec 5 2007 12:30:45 by LAXintl
USAirways Air Carrier Certificate Merge posted Fri Sep 21 2007 01:50:17 by BP1
What Is A Foreign Air Carrier Permit? posted Tue May 15 2007 14:48:33 by Dkny
DOT Grants US Airways Slot Exemptions For DCA-SRQ posted Tue Jun 13 2006 00:27:04 by A330323X
DOT Chooses Air Midwest (USEx) For EAS At JLN posted Sat May 13 2006 06:04:30 by A330323X