As we noted earlier, the unintended consequences of a new Obama administration regulation will be worse than the “crisis” it was intended to solve:
Several airlines, including Fort Worth-based American and Houston-based Continental, say they will cancel flights rather than risk paying stiff penalties for delaying passengers on the runway…Under new federal guidelines that take effect next month, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if a plane is stuck on the tarmac for longer than three hours.
With the new fines, a delayed MD-80 could cost American Airlines close to $4 million, and a fine for a full 757 could cost more than $5 million.
So to avoid the huge hit – which doesn’t discriminate between reasons for plans taking off late – airlines will cancel flights that show even the slightest chance of getting delayed on the ground:
“It’s unavoidable that more flights will be canceled to avoid fines,” said American Airlines spokesman Steve Schlachter. “It’s one of the unintended consequences of a bill that has no flexibility.”
A spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Department said airlines can avoid fines by doing a better job of scheduling flights and crews.
“Carriers have it within their power to schedule their flights more realistically, to have spare aircraft and crews available to avoid cancellations” and to rebook passengers when there are cancellations, said Bill Mosley, a department spokesman.
Which is something that could only come from a government bureaucrat (or a libertal tax hike advocate). Weather and its affect on other airports is the main reason for delays; flights are scheduled months in advance (or so Orbitz tells me; check it yourself). And at a time when competition, regulation, taxes and fuel costs are already trimming airline margins to the bone, “spare planes and crews” are things that only government can realistically afford. And remember – today, as we noted in my previous post on the subject one flight in 10,000 is currently more than three hours late in taking off. Many times more than that will be cancelled, now.
You’d think that after 40 centuries of governments attempting to control the natural forces of the market and failing Every Single Time, we’d have learned not to try. Especially with The Smartest Administration Ever running the show.
An airline that consistently runs late while simultaneously charging a premium price earns a terrible reputation and nobody will fly it unless they are forced to because the government has granted that carrier a monopoly on gates at the Minneapolis hub, for instance [cough, Northwest, cough].
It’s especially infuriating that the government proposes to fine airlines for delays when the government owns the airport; the government decided how many runways to build; the government decides the hours of flight operations over metropolitan areas; and the government controls the airspace nation-wide, including around airports. This regulation is like Mn/DOT giving you a ticket for getting home late because there was a traffic backup on 35W.
.
– TCF is ending free checking due to new gov’t laws
-Bank of America is no longer allowing you to do overdrafts on debit cards due to new fed’l laws
-The fed’l gov’t has declared war on part-time fishing guides
-Minn gov’t has declared war on massages (the legitimate kind, not those that advertise in the back of City Pages)
-I get some nice free stuff and perks through credit card use. I expecet those to be scaled way back soon.
But hey, at least Taryle Clark is proposing a law that stays state employees can’t stay at hotels where “violent pXrn” is available. Let’s hope that law doesn’t apply to Minneapolis city employees.
Having the government on your side is like having a near-sighted, narcoleptic elephant as a bodyguard. Sure, it looks and sounds impressive, but one wrong (if well-meaning) toss or turn and you’re paste.
If only 1 in 10,000 flights has been delayed more than 3 hours – ON THE RUNWAY – then what is the big deal here?
What is so horrible about having passengers deplane while they wait, where they have access to reasonable amenities, if the delay goes more than 3 hours? It doesn’t take THAT long to reload passengers onto a flight.
If the airlines hadn’t had some horrible experiences, really horrible experiences, essentially holding passengers hostage on delayed flights, this wouldn’t be an issue. If someone has a better idea for addressing these very few but very bad events, then great. Until a better idea comes along, airlines canceling some flights and then rescheduling is not the end of the world.
So this is your answer, eh DG, more federal government control:
“Under new federal guidelines that take effect next month, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if a plane is stuck on the tarmac for longer than three hours.”
“then what is the big deal here?”
Well, DG, I guess there is no big deal then. (whoops, except for those “horrible experiences, really horrible experiences” when “only 1 in 10,000 flights has been delayed more than 3 hours”)
DG, does that tinfoil hat ever fly off when you spin?
K-Rod,
Are you afraid to simply state your viewpoints about what Mitch has written? Must you always simply make personal attacks against those with whom you do not agree? Dog Gone makes a couple of very valid points. If you can refute those points, please do so.
But attacking Dog Gone for what was said and saying nothing else weakens your argument (such as it is) and strengthens the words of Dog Gone.
What is so horrible about having passengers deplane while they wait, where they have access to reasonable amenities, if the delay goes more than 3 hours? It doesn’t take THAT long to reload passengers onto a flight.
Well, it’s a little like herding cats, but the problem is that at busy airports like MSP, O’Hare and Kennedy the departure gates are scheduled very tightly; if a flight runs late, another flight is going to need the gate. There might be someplace to deplane them, but finding a place to re-board is going to be trouble.
If the airlines hadn’t had some horrible experiences, really horrible experiences, essentially holding passengers hostage on delayed flights, this wouldn’t be an issue. If someone has a better idea for addressing these very few but very bad events, then great. Until a better idea comes along, airlines canceling some flights and then rescheduling is not the end of the world.
Well, no. As with most government regulations, it’s going to cause a worse problem; any flight that has any chance of being late will get whacked. It will increase the problem by an order of magnitude; ten people will wait for much longer than three hours in the terminal for every one that would have waited on the tarmac.
Leslie, my suggestion for you is to STFU if you don’t have anything positive and on topic to lend to the discussion. 8)
Bwwwwwwaaaaaaahahahahahahaha
Moon-bats; some times the best thing to so is mock them.
In last year’s situation where the Contintental flight was forced to land in Rochester due to bad weather in the Twin Cities, the passengers were kept on board because there were no TSA agents on duty to handle security to deplane and then reboard a group of passengers (who had already gone through security). The system works: no would-be terrorist, who knew the plane was going to be grounded unexpectedly, was going to get a chance to get through the net. And no common sense airport manager or gate agent was going to risk the scrutiny and paperwork of stepping outside the bureacracy to use that common sense (which illustrates the new definition of Common Sense).
In the Rochester fiasco TSA excuse has been debunked many times. The secure area at the airport does not become unsecure overnight the passengers would have been kept inside the secure area. The real issue was the one person on duty from a different airline (Continental does not serve Rochester) who would not assist in getting the plane to a gate so it could unload.
Well, it’s a little like herding cats, but the problem is that at busy airports like MSP, O’Hare and Kennedy the departure gates are scheduled very tightly
This is why they don’t have “spare aircraft and crews available to avoid cancellations”. Any time a piece of equipment (a gate, a plane, etc) is not being used to make money (boarding paid passengers, carrying paid passengers), then it is losing money (usually thru depreciation – or in the case of a spare crew, salary and benefits while sitting around waiting to get called to the rescue). It’s standard practice in any business that moves things for money, to have all available assets moving things as much as possible during the times of the day that business is heaviest. They can’t just leave a gate open in case a plane gets stuck, so they can debark the passengers from that plane until another one is available.
The airport gates (and the push truck, the baggage carts, the ground crew, the fuel truck, etc) are scheduled down to the minute. If one plane can’t take off, and gets stuck at the gate, that sends a ripple down several hours of scheduling, delaying many flights past the initial delay. Since the gates are all scheduled, they can’t send the next flight over to a spare gate that isn’t being used, because in an ideal business climate, they all would be used.
Leslie, my suggestion for you is to STFU if you don’t have anything positive and on topic to lend to the discussion.
Bwwwwwwaaaaaaahahahahahahaha
Moon-bats; some times the best thing to so is mock them.
KRod,
Leslie’s actually added a lot of value to a lot of discussions, and she’s hardly a moonbat.
Save the aggression for the election season. We’re gonna need it then.
Mitch,
I fly three times a month (minimum). I would say I have some experience in this area.
First, I’ve been stuck on planes for an extended period of time three times.
Once in Frankfurt, Germany, when we missed our ‘window’ – we sat on the tarmac for four hours. It was pretty much hell – the AC was inadequate, there wasn’t much food, and THEN we took off on an 8 hour flight. That sucked.
The second time was for 2.5 hours waiting for a gate. I missed my conneciton – there was really not much excuse other than American had some weather issues in another city, and so was stuck with planes stuck at the gate in the city I had arrived at.
The last time was recently, I sat for a couple hours in Harrisburg, PA when fog interrupted flights to DCA (Reagan Airport) – the funny thing was, only Delta flights were turned away, the even FUNNIER thing, the only reason we got to get off the plane was that Norm Coleman was on it, and the flight attendant threatened the local airline management with bad press if a ‘former Senator’ were kept on the plane for hours.
This situation occured 600 or so times since mid 2008 – roughly 1 in 10,000 flights. It is aggregeous conduct by the airline to hold passenger on a plane for many hours rather than provide simple courtesy. The don’t do it because the passenger is a captive audience, and it costs them nothing to keep them on the plane. Further, it’s often MUCH worse than just 3 hours. There were a couple hundred instances of people being stuck on the plane for more than 6 hours.
Yet, your complaint isn’t against the airline(s), it’s once again, in a broken-record format, against anyone trying to do anything to help.
Rather than suggest just perhaps, just maybe, the airlines should plan for how to deal with a plane that nears or reaches the three hour limit (like, say, letting them off the freakin plane), no, no, let’s bitch and phumper about regulation and cancelled flights, even though such regulation is well-intended, and frankly, more than needed.
I will tell you candidly that virtually EVERYONE I know, including me of course, would prefer to have the flight cancelled rather than sit on the ground for hours, unable to communicate (much – certainly none after our batteries in our cell phones/laptops die) – unable to do business, in cramped, hot, fetid, stinking planes, full of old sewage and no food nor drink.
Yet, you suggest that the attempt to curtail this irresponsible practice is wrong-headed, and Mitch, I’m MORE than well aware of the reasons for flights being delayed, I’ve suffered all of them you know, and probably more than a few you don’t – you suggest that instead we should simply put up with this practice, I have to conclude, because you offer NO solution.
Quite simply, in yet more evidence of what a pandering bunch of boot-lickers the conservatives are to their corporate benefactors, you don’t want to do anything at all. No penalties for outrageous conduct, NO SIR, any such thoughts are the hallmark of fools in your mind – for gosh, the companies might do the unthinkable, and actually try to avoid the situation altogether, as if that’s something we’d not already thought of. No, no, can’t cost them money for being unready or unwilling to handle flight delays in some manner that provides even the barest of comfort for passengers delayed hours and hours… better to simply do away with such penalties under the guise of not cancelling flights. For apparently to you, not cancelling flights is the only consideration we can and or should possibly expect airlines to use in response – we can’t possibly hold corporations accountable for the conduct.
You often portray yourself and conservatives as the little guy standing up to the “Man”. You certainly DO represent average joe in this issue, you clearly represent the common man, the interests of the individual – as long as the individual’s name ends in Checci or Fuld (those were the former CEO’s of Northwest and Lehman – both of whom used underhanded business practices which eventually lead to bankruptcy for their companies). Good for you , but, just because I’m foolish and fly often, I’ll still prefer Obama’s solution over your non-solution just this once, hope you don’t mind.
To be clear Mitch, what I’m saying is, nearly EVERYONE I know would prefer to have a flight cancelled that sit on a plane for more than 3 hours, certainly for domestic business travel.
When cancelled, we get to:
1. Continue to do business
2. Are accessible
3. Get the flight re-booked automatically by the airline or get refunded.
4. We don’t have to sit on a hot, stinking plane for hours – and can actually maybe determine our own fate..
Now, some won’t like it, sure – but I’d venture to guess most would. That said, why do you so easily agree that expecting the airline to find a gate to let people off is such an unreasonable solution? Because the airline says so?
Perhaps in your zeal to blame Obama for everything from the economy to global warming e-mails, you might want to take a step back realizing who you’re defending. The airlines in the country preferred deregulation, and have been on a 30 year nose-dive to the bottom, treating their passengers with contempt, and in a race to see who can go out of business first. It isn’t the government’s fault, it’s management by the airline (in an oxymoronic reality) – and claiming that either/both flight cancellations are unacceptible and/or expecting the airlines to plan or face a fine is unreasonable, is in itself the only unreasonable thing at all. Defending companies that treat their customers with contempt – and please save me the hyperbole about ‘free markets’ – they ALL do it – anyway, defending such practices and the companies which engage in them, only makes you appear to be more interested in corporate profits than fairness or decency.
Pen,
I”m not saying that being stuck on a plane is a good thing. I’m mildly claustrophobic, and at 6’5 I’m about a foot taller than coach seats are designed for. It’s not my idea of a good time. I got delayed 90 ninutes in LaGuardia; pretty crummy.
But as Lott noted, one departure in 10,000 is late by three or more hours. I’m going to wager bragging rights that if this rule if enforced, at least ten times as many flights get cancelled – at least one in 1,000. Better than being stuck on the plane? Depends. If you’re working, wifi goes a long way. If you’re trying to get to a wedding or a sick relative, not so much.
I’m not defending airlines (although it’s worth noting that the “sitting on the tarmac” thing is at least partly a result of government interference fifteen years ago over the “late departure” crisis; nowadays, planes will push back from the gate and sit there for hours, just to look like they’re on time leaving.
The upshot? Obama sucks.
Thank you Leslie!
(psst, Mitch – Leslie is a he, not a she, just a helpful ‘fyi’.)
3 hours is a long time. I’m guessing that if one plane is waiting-due to weather or something similar, a lot of planes are waiting as well.
So it would make sense to deplane people, and if a reasonable new estimated time of departure exists, to require them to stay in the secured areas. If not – then heck, recheck them through security. It’s the passengers job to check with the airline if there is a delay in departure, not the airlines job to ‘herd cats’.
If the alternative is a bit more work for the airlines ground staff, or intolerable conditions for the passengers AND crew, I vote for a little reasonable extra trouble for the ground crew.
When Mitch mentioned that the rules don’t allow for the reason for a delay – is anyone less uncomfortable because of the reason? And wouldn’t reasons make more wiggle room for the airlines to quibble?
If airlines cancel flights, they have to refund the money. If airlines cancel flights, passengers will book with some other airline – possibly more than for the rescheduled trip if they are unhappy enough.
There are plenty of reasons arguing for the airlines to make accomodation for these new rules to be competitive. There did not seem to be adequate free market pressure for them to avoid keeping passengers on planes for too long a period of time when it became oppressive….so, it may not be perfect, but it sure doesn’t seem like it is so horrible to try these new rules /regs and see how it plays out. If there are problems – it can be changed. If it helps, great.
“(psst, Mitch – Leslie is a he, not a she, just a helpful ‘fyi’.)”
More proof that guys can whine with the best of em; even to the point of sniveling like a little girl.
Mitch, Les lent nothing to this discussion.
Peevish Boy, how about we fine the Met Council $25,000 for every auto that is stuck in traffic more than one hour, regardless of the reason?
Mitch, Les lent nothing to this discussion.
Actually, I alone (along with Roosh, Bogus and Ringer) determine value on this blog. Mr. Hittner has added quite a bit to several discussions.
Peevish Boy, how about we fine the Met Council $25,000 for every auto that is stuck in traffic more than one hour, regardless of the reason?
That, on the other hand, was a good one!