Finally - Airlines are held responsible

[wsuffa]

I've often wondered how the price structure actually does work. I book flights to Belgium and Paris frequently for my mom (she hasn't learned how to use Delta.com yet and probably never will). So it's the same route over all different types of year. I can't make any rhyme or reason of how much it costs and why it fluctuates as much as it does. I'm also not in tune with all the factors. It seems to me like it shouldn't be cheap - that's a long trip. But I've seen it vary from $500 to $2000 for the same flight on the same airline. Now I realize that's a lot different than domestic flights that people might be more in tune with, but I admittedly don't know why that goes on (other than the obvious supply/demand). Doubly so when fares go up $100 or more over the 30-minute period when my mom is being indecisive trying to save $10 on a ticket that she's now paying an extra $50 for. Maybe they know I'm looking at tickets for her.

So my point - obviously everyone will notice the extra $100, and they might notice the extra $10 on cheaper domestic flights, but would the average consumer really notice a $10 price change across an airline?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

The airlines (in general) use a system called "yield management" that tries to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the seats in the plane. Part of the equation is how many seats are sold (and to whom), part is "route management" - which will sell you tickets to Brussels for less than the same flight to JFK will cost on it's own, part is the pricing and assumed load/yield of competitors. There is also some historic pricing built in - like the assumption that demand is higher in summer than winter. And special events factor in, too, meaning that pricing to the Super Bowl (er, "Big Game") will be higher than normal.

Each employs the methods in different ways. Delta, for example, will often have moderate fares up until about 3 weeks before flight time, reduce them a bit for 2 weeks, then raise them again within 7 days of travel. Saturday night stays factor in for international travel. Southwest starts low and gradually rises: it is usually cheaper during the last week before travel, but can be higher other times.

The goal would be to create demand that fills one seat less than full. Why? Because if you sell out, you've asked too little for the seats and left money on the table... but if you have a lot of empty seats, you've priced too high and left money on the table (from empty seats).

Unpredictability is part of the equation, too, to try and keep "business travelers" from learning the pattern and booking close-in at the cheapest price. (That assumption really is limited in value these days: I'm pricing a Jan. flight to Denver: refundable tickets are $1500 RT while NR seats are $500 RT w/a $150 change fee if we need to change it. Even if I went one way on this ticket and threw away the return (while buying a full-fare ticket for the return), I'm ahead of the game. Most companies require NR tickets these days.

And yes, it really is treated as a commodity these days.

 

[EdFred]

Don't most of these people get stuck for 3+ hour scenarios happen where the community has allowed the airport to become so boxed in by development it's impossible to add another runway or 3 to alleviate the too many airplanes are here we can't deplane you issue?

 

[flyersfan31]

Hmm. Gates are full. What to do. Incoming plane waits for a plane to leave gate. Oops, they don't want to leave the gate, they're on a hold. Does arriving plane taxi to, say, the deice pad? To wait? Or deplane with, say, an airstair and a bus? need to round up drivers. Where do you take the pax? Or do you have the departure taxi out and wait? Now you have those folks waiting. Say they are 20th in line in a line of 40, and their fuel goes min? How do you get them out of line? Back everyone up? Start shuffling folks down the runway???

Once you get into gate constraints, it becomes almost unsolvable.

I don't see how legislation will do anything but make a rare problem both more common and worse.

 

[SkyHog]

Hmm. Gates are full. What to do. Incoming plane waits for a plane to leave gate. Oops, they don't want to leave the gate, they're on a hold. Does arriving plane taxi to, say, the deice pad? To wait? Or deplane with, say, an airstair and a bus? need to round up drivers. Where do you take the pax? Or do you have the departure taxi out and wait? Now you have those folks waiting. Say they are 20th in line in a line of 40, and their fuel goes min? How do you get them out of line? Back everyone up? Start shuffling folks down the runway???

Once you get into gate constraints, it becomes almost unsolvable.

I don't see how legislation will do anything but make a rare problem both more common and worse.

Gate constraints are a strawman issue. There are at least 3 solutions:

1) Use a non affiliated airline gate
2) Park and deplane away from the gate
3) Use one of the 10 gates that are owned by the airline, but not being used.

Every time I get stuck, #3 is an option, and its only a few yards away. And that includes the ever busy O'Haire where this the gates are "commonly full." Have you ever seen every gate occupied by an airplane? I sure haven't, and I've flown on some very heavy traffic days.

 

[flyersfan31]

Every time I get stuck, #3 is an option, and its only a few yards away. And that includes the ever busy O'Haire where this the gates are "commonly full." Have you ever seen every gate occupied by an airplane? I sure haven't, and I've flown on some very heavy traffic days.

Have you been on one of those 4hr strandings??

having to wait 10-20mins for someone to pushback is just one of those things. When everyone is jammed, and you get these "imprisonments" I don't think there are any more gates left.

you're right, using another airlines empty gate if available would be a logical solution and if these folks are being stranded and peeing in the aisles just because it's "someone else's gate" well that would be wrong. Somehow I doubt it's the case, but dumber things have happened.

 

[SkyHog]

More info on the strawman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Hare_International_Airport][/url]
O'Hare has 186 aircraft gates throughout four Terminals (1, 2, 3, 5) and nine concourses (B, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M).

Surely, if every gate is full, they must do double that number every hour at least, right?

O'Hare's maximum aircraft arrival capacity increased from 96 planes per hour to 112 planes per hour; United Airlines's senior vice president of operations, Joseph Kolshak

Oh...half....

So basically....there are enough gates to house, on a normal day, around 2 times the number of airplanes that they are capable of flying per hour. And that is maximum....

Where are all the gates at?

 

[flyersfan31]

BTW - I used to be pretty angry at airlines on this issue until I read an article in (I think) Aviation Week & Space Technology that laid out all the challenges airlines face in these situations. Very eye-opening. I'm assuming the legislators did NOT read the same article.

 

[SkyHog]

Have you been on one of those 4hr strandings??

Not four. My longest time was around 3.5 hours on a USAir flight out of Phoenix, holed up for thunderstorms.

But routinely in Denver, Chicago and Newark, 2+ hours.

 

[flyersfan31]

Not four. My longest time was around 3.5 hours on a USAir flight out of Phoenix, holed up for thunderstorms.

But routinely in Denver, Chicago and Newark, 2+ hours.

On the plane???

I used to fly a lot for business and I don't think I was stuck more than maybe 45mins. That includes flying out of Laguardia, Pittsburgh, and ORD

 

[Areeda]

I know this is a rare problem and PIC flexibility is the best solution.

But in my book #1 when the restrooms start overflowing so should the fines.

When they run out of water OK an hour or two, when they run out of food what 6 or 7 regardless I'm not in danger of leaving the flight skinny.

Some truth on the intercom and letting people get up, stretch and walk the isles would go a long way.

Joe

 

[SkyHog]

On the plane???

I used to fly a lot for business and I don't think I was stuck more than maybe 45mins. That includes flying out of Laguardia, Pittsburgh, and ORD

Yep. On the plane.

It sucks to be stuck in a terminal, but that's life. At least I can stretch my legs and walk around.

Next step after this is truthiness from the airlines as to why/how long the delays will be for passengers in terminals....

I sat in Denver waiting for a UAL flight to Albuquerque for about 2 hours while the board continued to read "15 minutes delayed." The inbound flight hadn't even left from its destination yet.

I was in Manchester, NH, flying some airline (can't remember which), and was stuck in weather for 8 hours in the terminal. Flight Aware was giving updates on departure time while the gate agents kept saying "Any minute now, guys!" Flight Aware showed a departure time around 4 hours later....

Plain and simple, the airlines don't care. Now, senate is making them care.

 

[Everskyward]

So basically....there are enough gates to house, on a normal day, around 2 times the number of airplanes that they are capable of flying per hour. And that is maximum....

Where are all the gates at?

If we are going to use your math and there is a 3-hour delay which means 3 hours of airplanes are on the ground at 100 airplanes/hour it adds up to 300 airplanes which is more than the number of gates (186).

I don't know if this is a logical way to look at it at all but it's as logical as your way.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Some more info on the plan:

Best,

Dave
=========================================


259.4 Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays.

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a Contingency Plan for
Lengthy Tarmac Delays for its scheduled and public charter flights at each
large and medium hub U.S. airport at which it operates such air service and
shall adhere to its plan's terms.

(b) Contents of Plan. Each Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays
shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) for domestic flights, assurance that the air carrier will not permit an
aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours unless:

(i) the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or
security-related reason (e.g. weather, a directive from an appropriate
government agency) why the aircraft cannot leave its position on the tarmac
to deplane passengers; or

(ii) air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the
gate or another disembarkation point elsewhere in order to deplane passengers
would significantly disrupt airport operations.

(2) for international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S. airport,
assurance that the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the
tarmac at a large or medium hub U.S. airport for more than a set number of
hours, as determined by the carrier and set out in its contingency plan,
before allowing passengers to deplane, unless:

(i) the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or
security-related reason why the aircraft cannot leave its position on the
tarmac to deplane passengers; or

(ii) air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the
gate or another disembarkation point elsewhere in order to deplane passengers
would significantly disrupt airport operations.

(3) for all flights, assurance that the air carrier will provide adequate
food and potable water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the
gate (in the case of departure) or touches down (in the case of an arrival)
if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines
that safety or security considerations preclude such service;

(4) for all flights, assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as well as
adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the
tarmac;

(5) assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; and

(6) assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport authorities at
all medium and large hub airports that the carrier serves, including medium
and large hub diversion airports.


Also:


259.5 Customer Service Plan.

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a Customer Service
Plan applicable to its scheduled flights and shall adhere to this plan's
terms.

(b) Contents of Plan. Each Customer Service Plan shall, at a minimum, address
the following subjects:

(1) offering the lowest fare available;

(2) notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions;

(3) delivering baggage on time;

(4) allowing reservations to be held without payment or cancelled without
penalty for a defined amount of time;

(5) providing prompt ticket refunds;

(6) properly accommodating passengers with disabilities and other
special-needs, including during tarmac delays;

(7) meeting customers' essential needs during lengthy tarmac delays;

(8) handling "bumped" passengers with fairness and consistency in the case of
oversales;

(9) disclosing travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules,
and aircraft configuration;

(10) ensuring good customer service from code-share partners;

(11) ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and

(12) identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger
inconveniences resulting from cancellations and misconnects.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Some truth on the intercom and letting people get up, stretch and walk the isles would go a long way.

Joe

I don't know who you usually fly on, but on all the flights I have been crew on, if we were sitting with no immanent chance of moving, the seatbelt sign is off and people ARE free to get up and move around.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, THAT isn't as easy as it would seem. There may or may not be contractual issues with that. And there may or may not be duty/flight time issues with that.

Nothing about any of this is as cut and dried as people seem to think it is.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I'm saying it's do-able. The airlines refused to do it - And now they're being forced to. Yes, they're going to have to sit down with airport managers and work out plans for where to put planes. They're going to have to sit down with their unions and work out issues like using crews to taxi airplanes elsewhere, and knock out all the various little issues that could be involved in long delays. This isn't rocket science - It just takes some effort and work to move in the right direction. The airlines weren't putting forth that effort, so now they're being forced to. It's about freakin' time.

 

[SkyHog]

I don't know who you usually fly on, but on all the flights I have been crew on, if we were sitting with no immanent chance of moving, the seatbelt sign is off and people ARE free to get up and move around.

That hasn't been my experience. The FAs are usually fairly mean about it saying things like "We are on an active taxiway, the FAA requires that you be in your seat with your seatbelt on. We could move at any time!" for the entire ordeal.

 

[Areeda]

I don't know who you usually fly on, but on all the flights I have been crew on, if we were sitting with no immanent chance of moving, the seatbelt sign is off and people ARE free to get up and move around.

I apologize. It's been a while.

Joe

 

[Greg Bockelman]

That hasn't been my experience. The FAs are usually fairly mean about it saying things like "We are on an active taxiway, the FAA requires that you be in your seat with your seatbelt on. We could move at any time!" for the entire ordeal.

You fly on the wrong airline or with the wrong crews.

 

[Ted]

I'm not saying it's going to be easy.

Once again, yes you did.

Andrew, these are problems that are easily solvable.

I'm guessing you're saying it's not easy now, which it's not. I do agree something can be done.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Once again, yes you did.

Clarification: Most of the individual problems are fairly easy to solve, IMO - But there are enough of them that the entire process is not going to be so easy.

 

[Ghery]

On the plane???

I used to fly a lot for business and I don't think I was stuck more than maybe 45mins. That includes flying out of Laguardia, Pittsburgh, and ORD

Some years ago, on AA. Pushed back from the gate at DCA for a flight to DFW to catch a flight to SEA. We moved about 2 feet, stopped and sat for 2 hours due to TS in the area. But, we pushed back on time, so they could call it an "on-time" departure. And I missed the last flight to SEA, so AA put me up for the night. And booked me on an "O dark thirty" departure, so I didn't get much sleep by the time you figured the ride into town for the hotel, check in, get up EARLY for the ride back to the airport, etc.

Again, about 10 years ago on UA. IAH to ORD flight. Pushed back, headed for the runway and stopped. About 2 hours. TS overhead. I fully understand why they wouldn't/couldn't take off. No argument from me on that one, at all.

Now, why do I remember these cases? Because they are rare (thank goodness) and most of my flights work well. Most, not all.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Clarification: Most of the individual problems are fairly easy to solve, IMO

How about writing a proposal and submitting it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How about writing a proposal and submitting it.

That would qualify as complex.

I don't know what all of the little problems are - But I have yet to hear of one which is unsolvable given the proper effort.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't know what all of the little problems are - But I have yet to hear of one which is unsolvable given the proper effort.

And there lies the rub. No one single issue is a big deal. But the difficulty of solving them as a whole rises almost exponentially.

 

[Speed]

3) Use one of the 10 gates that are owned by the airline, but not being used.

Every time I get stuck, #3 is an option, and its only a few yards away. And that includes the ever busy O'Haire where this the gates are "commonly full." Have you ever seen every gate occupied by an airplane? I sure haven't, and I've flown on some very heavy traffic days.

It's not just having a gate open. How about ground crew? I flew into DEN where we had about 8 gates, but typically they only staffed enough ground crew to work 2 or 3 flights at a time. We would sit on the taxiway and wait for a 'gate', while pax in the back are pointing at and asking about the open gates... This particular airline's policy required a marshaller and two wing-walkers to taxi into the gate (for good reason after running airplanes into stuff and gates), plus an agent at the airplane and at the top of the gate during deplaning. If you aren't staffed for it, it does no good to have the aircraft park at the gate.

 

[wabower]

Again, I can only speak from experience in the cockpit of both bizjets and carriers (as a jump-seater) when it hits the fan. I live in Dallas, and know what's going to happen if you arrive at DFW when the airport is in full-divert mode, all the gates are full, each gate has at least one sitting in the penalty box that's been there longer than you have and they have all hands and the cook working as fast as possible. It's not going to be pretty. And unless you want to add the slammer to your list of problems, you'll maintain your decorum while they sort it out.

When there's a problem, people default to whatever other option they can think of, and among their grievances they list all the things they could be doing rather than sitting on an airplane. BFD. If you fly, it happens from time to time, so deal with it. Last time I checked, the crew was in there with you. If they could solve the problem, you can assume everybody would be inside the terminal. So who at the airline do you want to blame for this week's snowstorm? Management? Dispatch? Operations? Weather nerds? Baggage handlers?

I can tell you that sitting in the front of a biz-jet at Teterboro doesn't feel much different than sitting in the back of a MD-80 at LaGuardia or Newark, except that the biz-jet crews are bitching more because the carriers get most of the slots.

I assume that even the back of the class understands that when the TV lights go on, the doofus reporter isn't going to interview the guy who shrugs his shoulders and says "**** happens" as he leaves the terminal, but wants to talk to the one who will ***** and cry most convincingly for the camera.

If I'm in New York or Chicago or whatever, and I want to be home in Madison... I'd still rather get stuck for the night OFF the plane, than sit for 6 hours on the ground ON the plane. Period, end of story. When these planes do get stranded, how many pax did you hear saying "I wish we could have stayed on the plane for just a few more minutes so we could get going..."???

Also, I'd be very interested in actual statistics as to how many of the 3+ hour strandings happened before takeoff and how many were after landing. As annoying as sitting in New York might be when I want to be home, it would be orders of magnitude more... Okay, not even in the realm of "annoying" but "aggravated and furious" if I had to sit on the ramp for 6 hours at my home airport!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And there lies the rub. No one single issue is a big deal. But the difficulty of solving them as a whole rises almost exponentially.

Maybe it'll give all those management employees at United some real work to do, huh?

 

[PilotAlan]

As has been said, the airlines have been screwing the pax and made no effort to fix the issue. Now it is being forced upon them.

Why get everyone aboard and push back, when you know there's 40 planes waiting to take off and a ground stop in effect? Because they want the "on time departure". Never mind the self-loading cargo will be sitting in the plane for at least two hours.

I'm sorry, but what they have been doing to passengers is literally criminal in any other context. The airlines don't give a damn about the passengers, or the crews, or anyone else.

The airlines have brought them on themselves. They lie to their customers, treat their customers like hostages, and then wonder why they're bankrupt?
This has been an issue for at least a decade, and they keep managing to fight off the Passenger's Bill of Rights. It's finally time they are forced to treat the self-loading cargo as CUSTOMERS.

 

[timwinters]

Real world...

I'm booked to fly commercially from CLE to CGI today via STL. Considering the weather that's roaming around today, I'll probably drive instead.

I would much rather drive 8 hours than deal with commercial airlines on a bad weather day.

The delays are one thing but the attitudes are another. It would go a long way if airline employees would at least act like they cared.

I guess, to put it another way, I don't trust commercial airlines to get me to my destination when the weather's dicy. But, more importantly, I don't trust them to care if they get me to my destination or not.

 

[flyersfan31]

And there lies the rub. No one single issue is a big deal. But the difficulty of solving them as a whole rises almost exponentially.

Definitely.

 

[flyersfan31]

I know this is a rare problem and PIC flexibility is the best solution.

But in my book #1 when the restrooms start overflowing so should the fines.

That's hard for any reasonable person to argue with!!!!

 

[flyersfan31]

That hasn't been my experience. The FAs are usually fairly mean about it saying things like "We are on an active taxiway, the FAA requires that you be in your seat with your seatbelt on. We could move at any time!" for the entire ordeal.

I have to say that's been my experience too. Without exception. Usually in a nasty tone, from some leather-faced bag with too much makeup and too much attitude. This does not happen on SWA.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I have to say that's been my experience too. Without exception. Usually in a nasty tone, from some leather-faced bag with too much makeup and too much attitude. This does not happen on SWA.

Do you have a solution for that? A LEGAL solution to that? If so, I would like to hear it.

 

[SkyHog]

I have to say that's been my experience too. Without exception. Usually in a nasty tone, from some leather-faced bag with too much makeup and too much attitude. This does not happen on SWA.

You are right, I've never had it happen on SWA.

Looks like you and I just "pick the wrong airlines."

 

[SkyHog]

Do you have a solution for that? A LEGAL solution to that? If so, I would like to hear it.

For FAs being nasty in tone? I think you have a solution to that too...

That is, afterall, what he was responding to.

Beyond the tone, a little reason wouldn't hurt either.

A. People have been stuck for hours.
B. People need to use the bathroom.

What happens when A and B are put together? Oh well, f 'em, we're on a taxiway!

 

[flyersfan31]

Do you have a solution for that? A LEGAL solution to that? If so, I would like to hear it.

A legal solution to nasty FAs? Sure. I would think that since their job involves both safety and customer relations, an extensive course in good customer relations might help. Maybe they already get that, but "service with a snarl" seems to be the rule of the day. Again, not my experience on SWA, they are friendly without fail. United, USAir, AA - I'd say 3/4 of the FAs are nasty to the customers, in my admittedly anecdotal experience.

Since the FAs, more than any other employee of the airline, represent that airline, that's the main driver of an airlines reputation with individual flyers.
You may be the best stick in the air, but nobody sees you up front. Sorry to say, but your best efforts are undermined by the nasty folks in back.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

A legal solution to nasty FAs?

I misunderstood the quote. Sorry.

I won't minimize the attitudes of some of the Flight Attendants. But I will say there are passengers that are equally as nasty.

 

[wsuffa]

That hasn't been my experience. The FAs are usually fairly mean about it saying things like "We are on an active taxiway, the FAA requires that you be in your seat with your seatbelt on. We could move at any time!" for the entire ordeal.

I have to say that's been my experience too. Without exception. Usually in a nasty tone, from some leather-faced bag with too much makeup and too much attitude. This does not happen on SWA.

It really, truly depends on the airline and the crew. I've had the FA crew allow folks up on a taxiway - and call the captain to let him know - on a number of occasions when in a conga line. Southwest (as you mentioned), Delta, Continental, a couple of foreign carriers, even once on American. Again, depending on when we expect to move. Sometimes it'll be the captain that gets on the horn and announces that folks can move around a bit, but be ready to sit back down if we get clearance to move.

OTOH, my experience has been uniformly bad on USAir (and it's predecessor America West). And it's pretty tough to be comfortable on a RJ of ANY airline - which seems to be more and more the bird of choice.

Best FA crews seem to be on Southwest, JetBlue, VirginAmerica, Continental and Delta (pre-NW).... AA is a mixed bag, depending, though they tend to treat me pretty well as EXP.... the few times I've been on UA lately haven't impressed me. Had a great crew on a TAP flight recently, and an outstanding crew on a DL international flight out of ATL last year.

 

[flyersfan31]

But I will say there are passengers that are equally as nasty.

Oh yeah. Or worse. I agree. I've seen some a-holes that have made me wonder why the FA didn't just dump a load of coffee on their heads, or the CSR to book them accidentally to Minot ND. Something about air travel make some people assume they have a license to scream at anyone about anything. Sad.

 

[wsuffa]

Oh yeah. Or worse. I agree. I've seen some a-holes that have made me wonder why the FA didn't just dump a load of coffee on their heads, or the CSR to book them accidentally to Minot ND. Something about air travel make some people assume they have a license to scream at anyone about anything. Sad.

Agree, but noted that the TSA is enough to make a saint scream. And that's how every trip starts....

Airlines can do more - but it takes management commitment to customer service long before you get on the plane. I note far fewer issues with "bad passengers" on B6 or WN than I do on a legacy carrier...