Careful What You Wish For

[bicker]

Take-off would be worse. The airline has no control after they push-back. It makes no rational sense to measure airline performance including time after push-back. None.

Nope, take off makes more sense, and on-time arrival makes the most sense when selecting a valid metric of both system and airline performance.

This is the part of the problem with the industry - that there are consumers that think like this, that individual airlines should be punished for things our government has done.

No, absolutely wrong. Separate the contribution to the problems between that which the airline causes from that which our government causes. Hold the airline responsible for what they do, and hold ourselves, as citizens, responsible for what our government does. That's the fair way of looking at it.

Sure, there are lots of factors outside the airline's control once they push back. But are those factors uniform across all airlines on a given route?

Who is going to make passengers logically look at those numbers only in the context of single routes? No, sorry, John. You're wrong about this. Consumers don't think as logically as you claim. So it is our government's responsibility to ensure that mob mentality doesn't drive unfair things to happen.

I don't care about the specifics, just the end result.

Precisely my point. Consumers are not willing to think in a manner that measuring on-time performance, the way you would want it measured, could ever be fair.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

If you're hooked to the jetway they can board the plane and depart in under 30 minutes... If we're talking 4+ hours delay it should be fairly easy to provide that 30 minutes of notice for most planes once the delay condition begins to clear. The planes waiting less than 3 hours might get lucky and get to "jump past" some earlier flights since they'd be sitting in the stand-by line waiting to take advantage of any 5 minute gaps between snow squalls or whatnot, but that just makes the whole system more efficient even if it doesn't result in a true FIFO queue...

I am not sure I understand your post. My understanding is that a plane must push back to get in line to take off. Waiting at the gate, even if there are 50 planes already in the queue, doesn't get the flight any priority.

As a result, a flight that hopes to wait less than 3 hours, pushes back but then may need to return to the gate, then pushes back again and gets at the back of the line again. This is why some flyers are reporting that they are waiting more than 4 hours before takeoff, all in compliance with the new rules. -- Suzanne

 

[john1928]

This is the part of the problem with the industry - that there are consumers that think like this, that individual airlines should be punished for things our government has done.

What do you mean by punished? I want to help them and myself.

If we can show systemic problems clearly then this should be able to lead to a decrease in above capacity scheduling, new/better ATC options, more runways/airports in saturated cities, etc.

No, absolutely wrong. Separate the contribution to the problems between that which the airline causes from that which our government causes. Hold the airline responsible for what they do, and hold ourselves, as citizens, responsible for what our government does. That's the fair way of looking at it.

Let's pretend I have a job where I need to be at work to start at 9AM and the widget line cannot be run until all employees are present and accounted for. On time arrival is the expectation of my employer, and there may be consequences if I fail to meet that expectation (they could choose another employee and let me go).

Normally it takes me 15 minutes to make it to work so I can arrive on time with an 8:45 departure. However, on some days I happen to hit all red lights and it can take me 20 minutes. Sometimes there is road construction with several lanes closed and it takes 45 minutes to get to work.

Now I can't control the stop lights, nor the government imposed lane restrictions. Is it "unfair" for my employer to care when I arrive rather than when I leave home? Do they want to know whether my late arrival is a result of something beyond my control, or simply me over sleeping? That may make them more understanding about a single or few incidents that were "outside my control". But for trending and long-term employment decisions, in fact it seems like on-time arrival is in fact the most relevant metric for evaluating whether I'm meeting my employer's expectations.

If you think there is more value in having both the push back and arrival metrics available I would agree.

Who is going to make passengers logically look at those numbers only in the context of single routes? No, sorry, John. You're wrong about this. Consumers don't think as logically as you claim. So it is our government's responsibility to ensure that mob mentality doesn't drive unfair things to happen.

Precisely my point. Consumers are not willing to think in a manner that measuring on-time performance, the way you would want it measured, could ever be fair.

Raw data is neither fair nor unfair. Consumers using that data to make the best decisions for themselves is not unfair, it's rational.

If there is some disparate impact on different airlines due to requirements imposed by the government or other externalities then that would be where any unfairness would exist. Having these numbers front and center would be the best way for consumers and airlines to assess that and lobby for whatever changes are needed to reduce the differences.

You also argue that consumers can't look at complex comparisons logically and parse out the impact of portions of picture? I agree, some cannot but the beauty is, if they simply look at the best end-to-end number they'd end up making the same (rational) decision as if they had evaluated the more granular numbers.

 

[bicker]

What do you mean by punished?

Holding them responsible with regard to purchasing decisions.

If we can show systemic problems clearly then this should be able to lead to a decrease in above capacity scheduling, new/better ATC options, more runways/airports in saturated cities, etc.

Then get the government to do that, and stop punishing the airlines for the general public's reluctance to incur the costs of those things on them, either in terms of actual expense or in terms of added costs for air travel.

Let's pretend...

If we're going to pretend, we'll use my story. I work at the end of a 2 mile long road. Just past the building where my office is an Air Force base. One some days, it takes me four minutes to get from the turn-off to my office. On some days, it takes me forty-five minutes to make the two mile trip. No, my company does not hold me or anyone responsible for being late when the Air Force base is on alert and we're consequently late for work because our trip was unexpectedly extended by forty-one minutes due to government action.

Raw data is neither fair nor unfair.

Only careless misuse of raw days is unfair.

You also argue that consumers can't look at complex comparisons logically and parse out the impact of portions of picture? I agree, some cannot but the beauty is, if they simply look at the best end-to-end number they'd end up making the same (rational) decision as if they had evaluated the more granular numbers.

That's untrue.

 

[Lewisc]

Airlines decide what airports to service. Airlines decide what time to schedule flights. Airlines can negotiate with airports. Airlines have a much better ability to communicate with the FAA then

People living near cities like NY, Boston, LA etc have more then on airport available. No reason not to "reward" an airline that selects an airport and flight time that has a better chance of passengers arriving on time. No reason not to "punish" an airline that schedules flights at a time and in an airport that traditionally has congestion that results in poor on time performance.

Others in this thread used the terms "reward" and "punish". I'd prefer more neutral words such as select and avoid.

 

[bicker]

Airlines' overriding obligation is to provide the owners profit by operating a safe airline that earns the most amount of revenue. If passengers motivate them to provide more flights, despite the fact that doing so actually causes those same passengers some dissatisfaction, which they refuse to operationalize, then passengers deserve all credit and blame for what the passengers get in response to that motivation.

 

[Lewisc]

Airlines' overriding obligation is to provide the owners profit by operating a safe airline that earns the most amount of revenue. If passengers motivate them to provide more flights, despite the fact that doing so actually causes those same passengers some dissatisfaction, which they refuse to operationalize, then passengers deserve all credit and blame for what the passengers get in response to that motivation.

Your posts in this thread are not up to your usual standards. Airlines objective is to earn the most profit. You previously, correctly noted, some years minimizing the amount of loss may be the best they can do. Maximizing revenue should not be the goal. One of the mistakes some airlines made was offering more flights to leisure cities like Orlando then there are passengers willing to pay profitable fares. The questions isn't the discomfort of the passengers as much as the detrimental impact on profits.

Traditionally, but not as much the last few years, Southwest avoided airports that are congested and are subject to delays. Over the last year SW has been reducing the number of flights to cities like Orlando that only sell at unprofitable fares.

Give accurate information on flight delays (not just push back). Let passengers decide if an alternate flight time or alternate airport makes sense.

I suspect many passengers would still book the lowest price and accept long delays.

Long evening delays (consistently over an hour) at JFK and EWR were only solved when newspaper reports embarrassed the airport into working with the airlines to reduce the number of flights scheduled to the amount of planes the airport could accommodate.

 

[bicker]

Your posts in this thread are not up to your usual standards.

No sense in making the other side of the argument look bad.

Maximizing revenue should not be the goal.

Minimizing revenue should not be the goal.

Airlines' overriding obligation is to provide the owners profit by operating a safe airline that earns the most amount of revenue. I can understand if you don't like that, but denying it is "not up to your usual standards", Lewis.

One of the mistakes some airlines made was offering more flights to leisure cities like Orlando then there are passengers willing to pay profitable fares.

Chicken-and-egg, Lewis: Which came first?

Give accurate information on flight delays (not just push back). Let passengers decide if an alternate flight time or alternate airport makes sense.

Let toddlers have guns, so that they can protect themselves from being abducted. Outrageously out of proportion? Yes, but still analogous. One of the great things, though, is that if people insist on the industry reporting something so easily misleading, then the industry will effectively find a way to make the metrics useless for all purposes. The only way to get useful information, is to make the metrics fair to all sides.

 

[Lewisc]

Airlines' overriding obligation is to provide the owners profit by operating a safe airline that earns the most amount of revenue. I can understand if you don't like that, but denying it is "not up to your usual standards", Lewis.

Revenue doesn't equal profit. Maybe you mean net revenue?

An airline will maximize total revenue if they run their planes 24/7. As long as one passenger is willing to pay one dollar revenue will be increased.

Actually that's the problem the airlines had. They fell into the old trap of "making it up with volume" when they priced fares to leisure destinations. Airlines have gotten better. Airlines aren't making any attempt to match the fares offered by airlines like Allegiant, Direct Air and Spirit. Ignoring them is the probably the best strategy.

 

[bicker]

Revenue doesn't equal profit. Maybe you mean net revenue?

Sure that'd be a fine amendment.

 

[Lewisc]

Sure that'd be a fine amendment.

That's why your posts in this thread aren't up to your usual standards. Concentrating on revenue and not profit resulting in airlines offering crazy fares. It's not a big deal when posters in an internet board don't make the distinction. It's a big deal when some airlines ran their business that way.

I certainly agree airfares (many markets) are too low (unprofitable). I don't blame those of us who book those fares as much as I blame airlines for allowing overcapacity on some routes to continue for so long. A couple of years ago you (maybe a different poster) asked what SW would do when SW no longer had the fuel advantage over other carriers. I suggested they'd raise there fares and reduce some flights. SW is doing that. SW is still (barely) profitable. We have a number of threads complaining about high SW fares. We have other posters complaining about elimination of N/S flights from their city to Orlando.

We're getting past the topic of this thread. Three hours on the ground on a plane is long enough. There are exceptions. No reason to let a plane push back if it's not going to be able to take off for over an hour. Manipulating on time statistics isn't a valid reason.

Also past the topic of the thread but something is wrong when posters think a family of 4 should be able to fly from the NE for less then the cost of driving.

 

[bicker]

That's why your posts in this thread aren't up to your usual standards.

You mean unassailable perfection is better than accepting constructive amendment?

We're getting past the topic of this thread. Three hours on the ground on a plane is long enough. There are exceptions. No reason to let a plane push back if it's not going to be able to take off for over an hour. Manipulating on time statistics isn't a valid reason.

Which is why I said that the metrics on airlines should be those metrics that measure satisfaction of the airlines' responsibility, and the rest should be held against air traffic control. So perhaps the best on-time metric for airlines would be a point in time when the airline requests permission from air traffic control to close the doors and push-back. If ATC says 'no' (for the reasons you alluded to) then that's on ATC, not the airline.

 

[Lewisc]

Which is why I said that the metrics on airlines should be those metrics that measure satisfaction of the airlines' responsibility, and the rest should be held against air traffic control. So perhaps the best on-time metric for airlines would be a point in time when the airline requests permission from air traffic control to close the doors and push-back. If ATC says 'no' (for the reasons you alluded to) then that's on ATC, not the airline.

Makes some sense. I still maintain the airline may be at fault for scheduling that flight at that airport and at that time. Passengers might prefer driving a little further, or paying a little more,to fly out of an alternate airport if the result is a flight that takes off (not pushes back) on time.

 

[john1928]

So perhaps the best on-time metric for airlines would be a point in time when the airline requests permission from air traffic control to close the doors and push-back. If ATC says 'no' (for the reasons you alluded to) then that's on ATC, not the airline.

Bingo! As long as the consumer knows about both numbers they can then make an informed decision.

In fact, ask and ye shall receive (www.bts.gov). The wheels on the ground delay that has been provided to the government by the airlines since October 2008 breaks the delay down into Carrier, Weather, National Aviation System, and Security. You can also choose aggregate departure delay, arrival delay, etc.

So, I think the data I have been advocating for is out there. It's not what's used for the on-time statistics on the airlines websites when comparing flights (where it would help the airlines manage demand away from peak congestion) but an interested traveler can do the leg work to obtain it which is “fair”.

 

[bicker]

A second news service has now issued this news report:

Turbulence over tarmac delays
Report concludes 3-hour rule creates more problems than it solves

Airlines appear now to be canceling more flights rather than risk multi-million dollar fines for keeping passengers stuck on the tarmac for three hours or more.

While passengers won't be trapped in hot, crowded jets for hours on end, they might be stuck waiting in terminals even longer, and getting to their destination hours, maybe even days later. ...

"There's a much larger number of cancelations than we've ever seen before," said Darryl Jenkins, an airline consultant who also runs the website The Airline Zone.

Jenkins said it is taking 17 to 18 hours on average to rebook passengers on those canceled flights.

Rick Seaney, CEO of airfare-search site FareCompare.com and an ABCNews.com columnist, said that countless passengers were stuck at the terminal instead for extra hours, waiting to get home.

"My guess: more than half probably would have rather hung in for a bit more time to get home instead of partaking in airport amenities," Seaney said.

 

[john1928]

Interesting...
http://www.startribune.com/local/100367424.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyUhttp://www.startribune.com/local/100367424.html?cache=n&uccb=1281469013#post_comments

Longest of tarmac delays almost vanish amid tighter federal rules
<snip>
The major airlines reported three flights in June with tarmac delays exceeding three hours, the department said, compared to 268 flights in June 2009. The department emphasized that this sharp downturn did not lead to airlines increasing the rate of canceled flights.
<snip>
At the time that the new rules were proposed, the industry predicted that more flights would be canceled.
<snip>
However, the major carriers reported canceling 1.5 percent of their scheduled domestic flights in June, matching the rate of June 2009


Now I do agree with the ATA that flight delays and cancelations vary significantly from month to month, so you cannot take a single month (May or June) as the final answer for what the impact will be. But it does prove that statements about doubling or more the number of canceled flights don't seem very accurate so far. Though to be fair, I wouldn't be shocked to see a bigger impact during the winter...

 

[bicker]

Especially since the data that the industry reported to the department conflicts with what the department says that the data said.