777ualsfo
Topic Author
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:49 pm

Cost Of Airport Delays To Airlines

Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:29 am

On a recent flight ual san-sfo was reminded of the continued SFO weather delays due to inadequate runway configuration and SFO's decision to not rebuild their runways. (flight left san early, go to Santa Cruz, then circles with a slowdown for 30 minutes, adding 30 minutes flight time and burning fuel).

Anyone got comments on the following:
1). What is the cost to the airlines of airport-related delays (such as SFO's frequent weather delays) on the major airlines? Is this a major contribuent to UAL's difficulties given their hubs at SFO and ORD?
2). What is the calculated cost for PAX delays in terms of lost work etc.
3). Should the airport reimburse airlines for these costs - at least drop landing fees when they have to go to reduced runway capacity due to weather?
4). Should PAX be reimbursed

For airports such as SFO that have documented deficiencies and FAA approved plans for new runway construction, seems the airport should reimburse the loss that airlines and PAX incur due to these airport-related delays.
 
bobb
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:15 pm

RE: Cost Of Airport Delays To Airlines

Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:46 am

Again, that's like blaming the weather for your inconvenience. Until humans have the technology to control the WX, NO COMPENSATION FOR YOU!

of course I never understood why a little bad weather prevents the landing of planes.... I mean we got fly-by-wire, super-duper radar blah-blah-blah. Me guessing airlines' adversion for spending$ more than they have to, and FAA's famous bureaucracy.

BTW, that's why WN moved out of SFO, too damn much delays...
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Cost Of Airport Delays To Airlines

Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:45 am

of course I never understood why a little bad weather prevents the landing of planes.... I mean we got fly-by-wire, super-duper radar blah-blah-blah. Me guessing airlines' adversion for spending$ more than they have to, and FAA's famous bureaucracy.

Depends upon your definition of "bad weather." If you speak of "low visibility" then you are correct that low visibility does not prevent most airlines from operating in all but the worst (read: lowest) visibility. However, low visibility does SLOW the "normal" arrival/landing rate, especially at SFO. Airlines typically develop their flight schedules for fair/good weather/visibility [at SFO, that means using two runways for approach/landing] so when visibility goes down and the airport can not accept the scheduled arrivals [at SFO, that means using only one runway for approach/landing] you'll experience delays.

FAA bureaucracy plays a role as well. I have often been stuck sitting on the ground at LAX or SNA while the FAA decision makers on the east coast waited for SFO fog to lift. The local west coast controllers knew [called experience] when SFO could accept more traffic and it would take us an hour to get there, but bureaucracy said the Traffic Management Center was to make all such decisions --and they were often looking at ORD (or N.Y. or D.C.) rather than any west coast ops.  Crying
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!