Stupid Passengers (cancelled flights)
 

Nature vs. Nurture: Did the Blizzard or Federal Rules Cause Massive Flight Cancellations?
Published December 29, 2010

AP

Dec. 27, 2010: Snow removal crews work to clear runways at Philadelphia International Airport. A powerful East Coast blizzard menaced would-be travelers by air, rail and highway, leaving thousands without a way to get home after the holidays and shutting down major airports and rail lines for days.
Charges have been flying that airlines prematurely canceled flights ahead of the East Coast snowstorm because of new rules fining airlines for leaving planes standing idle on tarmacs, though transportation experts say that such claims are impossible to quantify.

In April, new rules went into effect that threatened airlines with a $27,500 per passenger fine if their planes didn't take off within three hours after pulling out to the tarmac. The move was aimed at reducing a spate of horror stories from people stuck in claustrophobic conditions on planes without access to bathrooms, water or food.

The regulation seems to have had its desired effect. According to the Department of Transportation, since new rules were enacted in late April, the number of tarmac delays over three hours has dropped considerably. From May to September 2009, 535 tarmac delays over three hours were reported; in May through September this year, the number was 12.

But after an East Coast storm threatened to ravage New York area and other airports, hundreds of flights to and from the region were cancelled – several even before the snow started to fall -- and complaints are mounting that the airlines were deserting their customers for fear of racking up fines.

"There's no doubt about it, airlines (were) pre-emptively canceling flights because they don't want to be stuck paying $27,000 per passenger," said Vaughn Cordle of Airline Forecasts.

"I think it's safe to say that there are many passengers who would have reached their destination, albeit with non-trivial delays, had the ... ruling not be in effect," said Amy Cohn, an associate professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan and an affiliate at MIT's Global Airline Industry Program.

But David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, said while anecdotally, the airlines have changed their behavior as a result of the rules, the cause-effect relationship in this case is unlikely.

"The greatest number" of cancellations was "truly driven by the weather," not the the new tarmac rules, he said.

After the Midwest storm delays a few years back, Northwest Airlines said it would pre-emptively cancel more flights during bad weather to keep passengers from waiting for long periods in the airport, Castelveter said. This was before the new regulations.

Airline analyst Darryl Jenkins said snowstorms are fairly easy to predict so airlines cancel flights ahead of time so as not to drag people to the airport just to strand them there.

"Don't think the regulations made any difference in this event," Jenkins said

A Department of Transportation official said the department does not get real-time information -- it receives monthly reports -- so it's too early to say how many cancellations and delays occurred over the last couple of days.

But in response to critics who feared the pendulum would swing too far to the other side after the new rules were enacted, the official said overall, the number of cancellations has not gone up significantly. In 2009, 220 flights were cancelled after delays of two hours or more compared with 225 flights in 2010 -- a difference of five flights.

Cohn said it's too early to know the data on how the law impacted airline behavior during the recent blizzard, but with the post-Christmas upswing in passengers, potential delays were too costly to risk.

"The per-passenger fine is too high -- especially with virtually every seat filled on the post-Christmas flights -- and there is too much uncertainty about when the (Transportation Department) would and would not impose fines for airlines to gamble on," Cohn added.

Cohn said she suspects that most flights with tarmac delays that would be eligible for fines will be exempt because they're international flights or there was no safe way to disembark passengers, a factor she called a major paradox to the new rules.

"During those times when three-plus hour delays are most likely, the airlines often do not have the ability to de-board passengers safely and thus the ruling doesn't apply," she added.

Cordle said while the fines have reduced three-hours delays, an increasing number of delays under three hours do impose a massive cost -- to consumers.

FoxNews.com's Sharon Kehnemui and Fox Business Network's Rich Edson contributed to this report.

Yup. Cheap fares equals less capacity. Less capacity equals being stuck for days when weather hits. Add the 3 hour rule, & they made a nasty bed to sleep in. Kind of funny.

Those "stupid passengers" are the ones paying your bills...please don't insult them by calling them stupid.

I treat my (the company's) customers with respect, not insults. Maybe you should too.

The biggest problem is that the potential fines are so huge, no airline is going to gamble. On a 150 pax plane (MD88, 737, 3/4 filled 757), the fine might be $4.1 million. That's a lot of money to gamble with!

Not much of a decision on whether to cancel or not.

you treat a bunch of boxes with respect?

Just kidding. I agree with you.

The funny thing is that 99% of pax didn't ask for this rule. A loud 1% minority did with the backing of anti- business/pro-consumer politicians. Sad for all the non-Revs as well not to mention the hit to the Q4 earnings.

The hit would've been a lot worse if we got fined. WX cancellations are just part of the business. Also, that loud 1% minority was supported by others in the 99%. They may not have gone to the courthouses, but they kicked & screamed when they got stuck on a plane thereby encouraging the 1%.

This is a clear example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

How so? Did you miss the major snow storm in atl and then up the east coast? One could make the case that without the law (whether or not airlines cancelled because of it) airlines might have been in a worse spot had they kept flying, using crews, etc and trying to then recover with dislocated planes, timed out crews, etc. Remember management sells cheap tickets because that's what they do. Pax aren't idiots for buying them. Besides data shows that are no more cancellations before or after the law. It Seems the OP is happy many pax had flights pre-cancelled because they bought cheap tickets and now deserve what they got when in fact most pax ended up less inconvenienced due to the pre cancellations.
The dozen family members and friends I spoke with who all had cancellations a) had never heard of the 3 hour rule and b) all were Generally happy with the action the airlines took well ahead of the massive storm, versus getting stuck at the airport. Yes, it's a stoopid rule, especially how it was ramrodded through by a vocal minority and the media. However I don't see passengers as stupid for buying the cheapest ticket they can find. Blame that on management trying to under cut one another in an effort to pad bonuses. Now paying $150 to check bags, that's ok as many travel with furniture.

One could say that the law was a result of the airlines lacking common sense. Had their been no over night on an RJ without a working toilet stories their would not have been a new law. Stupid airlines.

Actually, the law DOES cause unnecessary cancellations. At my airline if you're not off the ground in EWR 2+30 after you push, you go back to the gate even if you're next in line for takeoff. Flight cancelled.

The RJ was not allowed a gate or to deplane. It was a TSA issue, not an airline issue. The terminal was "closed" for the night. No one wanted people in it.

Sorry, they are stupid. They have not paid for any raise I've had since before 9/11. I "paid" for their tickets by taking paycuts to give them cheaper tickets. They still are not happy and want to fly on outsourced airlines to save a buck.

Fine, if they want to save a buck, then fly on Colgan to Buffalo.

Fine, if they don't want to be late three hours by air, then they can drive or walk. The airline will cancel before paying $27,000 per passenger.

It doesn't take much per ticket to get pilot pay where it should be, but the passengers want greyhound service in the air instead of a professional airline. I'll be happy to give them what they deserve. ;)

Otto,

As the old saying goes: "You get what you pay for." And as it was pointed out before the "Passenger Bill or Rights" is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I personally have been stuck in an RJ in Jackson MS for 4 hours. Here is a lady that claims 9 hours in Austin: Passengers Sue American, Saying “We Were Imprisoned Against Our Will”

Are you saying that they were all TSA's fault. Do you really want me to google the DTW NW flight that started this mess. Yes there are extenuating circumstances but yes airline have also made some very stupid choices when faced with delays.

I agree the regulation makes cancelations more likely but if I want to get off an airplane, that is just sitting on the ramp, after a reasonable amount of time, I should have that option.

I agree Columbia as I had wondered if the cancellations were in part due to those concerns voiced in the OP's posting of the article. When I was trying to explain to family and friends why we were stuck outside of Baltimore due to a weather cancellation before the snow had even started falling, I told them about the 3 hour rule and NONE of them had heard of it.

I also disagree with those who point the finger at the passengers as those responsible for low fares. The public will pay what it costs. There might be a few who chose otherwise, but people kept paying nearly $5.00 for gas too. I'll buy the same furniture from a different store if it is $25.00 cheaper or a shirt from one department store rather than another if there isn't a difference in quality, and I'm less likely to pay extra for a pricey brandname (think Pottery Barn on some goods) rather than the same thing, somewhere else - - and I'll bet that many complaining about the consumers on here do the same thing with products that don't affect their daily lives.
I was inconveinenced by the cancellations and it was hard to sit there and watch my few days of leave burned with a smattering of snow on the ground in my local area at the time - -but I understood (or at least tried too) the bigger picture. The airlines in this case seemed to have been put in a tighty Catch 22.

In any case - thanks to the crew that DID eventually get me home a few days later than planned (and landed in that really bad fog (1/8SM -DZ VV001) in Kansas City (and OKC for that matter) on the 29th). NICE JOB :)

USMCFLYR

I'd imagine in the days of the likes of Ernest Gann, etc, when pilots had the cojones to stand up for what was right, this wouldn't have occurred.

is this type situation like that RJ, what not just taxi to the gate and tell them open the door or your going to EVAC?

That was back in the day when Airline pilots were well respected and their word and Judgement was gospel. Now, if you make a decision that doesn't jive with what the TSA wants you would probably be fired, have federal marshals show up on your door step, be brought up on charges and be treated like a terrorist!

No you shouldn't...you'll sit there and LIKE it! :D (At least for up to 3 hours)

Hey if they had let me off at the 3 hour point I could have walked to memphis. But at the 5 hour point my 27 hour trip was canceled with an all expense paid trip to the acp to follow (actually just a phone call).

Dug out of the snow yet?

Do the pax see any of this fined money..other than (I'm assuming) a travel voucher?

That's a valid question, however I think the reality of it is that, just like taxes, the gov't is using this to influence/control behavior.

The airlines behavior or the pax on how much bravo sierra they can take ?
If I had told people that ths industry would be the way it is today 20 years ago they would have called up the nearest loonie farm.:)

If in a situation similar to that of the RJ stuck overnight, why cant the captain pull to the gate and tell whoever was inside open the airport or I am going to EVAC? and if they refuse, then evac the plane. The media and public opinion would strongly be on your side.

That's easy, there are 100 airplanes on 100 gates, and you taxi in looking for
a gate. This has happened on numerous occasions and a couple have set a precedent, like the people vs NWA, Thanksgiving 1998 I think, eight hours and no gate. Northwest paid dearly for that one, and there was a B6 incident in recent memory where a passenger bill of rights was issued to everyone.

If you blow the slides you are leaving yourself wide open to a lot of liability and criticism, Steve Slater style, although I never understood the trespass charge. I simple solution would be to call the duty manager, recommend towing ship 406 off of gate 31, and let us deplane our passengers. Most ops people can work a solution recommended to them, others cannot create a mental picture.

Moreover, the aircraft/event in question was an ERJ which is not equipped with slides or an airstair door. It's a 5 foot drop. The liability would have been through the roof if they had evacuated.