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.