There are plenty of people out there who think the airlines are trying to “cheat” when they pad their flight schedules to account for delays, but I don’t get it. That is not what’s going on here. What they’re really doing is trying to delicately balance operational efficiency and customer satisfaction, believe it or not.

Scott McCartney at the Wall Street Journal took this on recently and started digging around. Evan at FlightCaster took it one further and analyzed all flight times. So what’s the result. Since 1996, schedule times have bumped up 8 minutes on average.

Of course, that number isn’t very relevant. You need to look at the biggest pain points to see where the most egregious increases are. JFK saw an average 27 minute increase on departures while Continental’s late afternoon departures from Chicago to Newark bumped up a whopping 45 minutes. My question is . . . so what?

Some passengers think this is an evil plot to make it look like they have a stellar on time record, but that makes absolutely no sense. First of all, think about it from a passenger standpoint. If you book a flight leaving at 8a and arriving at 4p, isn’t that what you expect? Does it matter if you arrive a couple minutes early?

Sure, it’s annoying when you arrive 45 minutes early and your ride is nowhere to be found, but that’s an anomaly. Think about it from the airline side. Do they want to pad their schedule? Absolutely not. If they could schedule their flights to take less time, they could cram more flights into a day and bring their costs down. That would be fantastic. So why do they pad?

Well think about it. Gate-to-gate flight times have actually gone up in the last 15 years. As airports have become more crowded, they’ve been forced to spend more time taxiing or holding in the air. And it’s not just blanket changes like that. Weather patterns matter as well. If you have particularly stormy time of year, you might build in some extra time for circling. During the winter, the airlines have longer block times on westbound flights across the country because the headwinds are stronger.

This is a science. The airlines have to delicately balance the desire to cram as many flights in a day as possible with the need to present passengers with an on time experience. People and computers are constantly working on trying to find the optimal block times, but that’s easier said than done. Things change often, and that means they can never be perfectly right. But they certainly aren’t trying to cheat.

About 10 minutes after the Wright Brothers put their first airplane into the air, American and British Airways applied for blanket codesharing and antitrust immunity. More than 100 years later, their wish has finally been granted, at least by the US authorities. Yes, they have to give up some slots, but it’s a very minor number. I would be very happy if I were them.

Assuming this ruling becomes final and the EU goes along with it, American and British Airways frequent fliers should be able to burn their own miles on the other airlines’ airplanes between the US and Europe. You will also start to see American Airlines codes popping up on British Airways transatlantic flights and vice versa. Oh yeah, and it’s not just these two. BA’s darling Iberia, Royal Jordanian, and Finnair are a part of this as well, but they were never the hold-up. It was always all about access to Heathrow.

So what made it go through this time when it’s failed so many times in the past? Well, the open skies agreement between the US and the EU played a big part. Without it, the DOT said the outcome would likely have been different. With a new round of talks on opening the skies even further about to begin, I imagine the EU will be very conscious about the connection here when they decide to rule.

The order itself was 44 pages long, but it really could have been said in one page. The DOT decided that the harm to competition wasn’t enough to overcome the consumer benefits . . . for the most part. (Gee, strange that the exact same body felt differently about the US Airways/Delta slot swap ruling earlier this week.)

The one market that was singled out by the DOT was Boston to London/Heathrow. (The DOT stated that Heathrow is, in its eyes, a separate market from the other airports in London. That was one of the only things that they and Virgin Atlantic agreed on.) The Boston to London market is large and will effectively go down from 3 competitors to 2 when BA and AA are considered one. So what will the DOT do about it? They’re requiring BA and AA to give up some Heathrow slots.

The ruling actually will require 4 slot pairs to be divested. That’s it. Yes, Delta has to give up 14 in Washington, but these two only have to give up 4. (I know they’re different issues completely, but still, the juxtaposition is there.) Of those 4 pairs, two must be dedicated to Boston – Heathrow flights. The other two can be used from any US city to Heathrow.

Keep in mind, BA and AA don’t have to give up slots they currently use for transatlantic flights. They can take any slots as long as they are at times that are appropriate for transatlantic flying. And they don’t even have to sell the slots. They can just lease them for a reasonable amount and actually earn money on them. This would require leasing them for only 10 years and then BA and AA could use them again if they wanted.

Now, who the heck is going to want these slots? In Boston, I can only think Delta would be interested. But will Delta want to fly that twice a day? I don’t think the market is big enough for them. And who will want the other two? It seems to me that the US carriers who want to fly to Heathrow already fly there with the frequency they want. Maybe since these will be cheap enough, some other options will pop up on the radar screen, but I’m just a little skeptical. If nobody wants them, then that’s ok. BA/AA just have to make sure they’re available if anyone wants them during the next ten years.

As you might imagine, Virgin’s Richard Branson is just pissed off about this. He has by far been the most vocal opponent since his Virgin Atlantic subsidiary stands to lose the most, in his eyes. Now he has just 45 days to somehow convince the DOT that it’s wrong. I don’t think it’s going to happen. Maybe he’ll have better luck with the EU.

Social Media May be Hot, But It’s Not for Everyone – BNET
I look at social media at the Singapore Airshow to figure out why it matters. (In this case, I don’t think it does.)

Two Reasons Why Japan Air Lines Chose American and oneworld over Delta and SkyTeam -BNET
JAL has chosen American and oneworld, and I think there are really two reasons for it.

United Airlines Posts an Excellent January, Industry Traffic Data Roundup – BNET
Huge kudos to United for now offering revenue estimates each month. And January was a great month to start because they had stellar numbers.

Air New Zealand’s Secret Weapon: War Dances and Happy Customers – BNET
One more look at Air New Zealand’s culture thanks to a unique award acceptance speech that saw CEO Rob Fyfe go topless. (If this post sounds a bit odd, it’s because it’s the first one under the new policy that all posts at BNET go through an editor.)

Earlier this week, American decided to stop offering free same day standby to customers who aren’t elite members in the AAdvantage program. While I’m sure some are steaming over the move, I’m not. It actually makes sense to me. I’m just pissed that they’ve decided to treat their customers like two year olds with their incredibly stupid spin. And for that, they get the not-so-coveted Cranky Jackass award.

The press release announcing the change was entitled, “American Airlines Streamlines its Airport Processes.” Usually a vague message like that means they threw a bunch of stuff into one release, hiding the bad news at the bottom. I think that’s what they teach in the College of Spin. If there was such a place, it would undoubtedly be located in a beautiful mountainous environment with grand vistas of panoramic wintry wonders (Siberia). But that’s not what happened here.

The entire release was focused solely on the fact that you can no longer standby for earlier flights on the day of travel unless you’re an elite member. You now have to pay $50 for a confirmed seat, if it’s available. Taking away this option does, in fact, “streamline” airport processes, but does the customer care about that? No. They care about the changing benefits, and they’re not going to be fooled by that headline. Gimme a friggin’ break. Do I look that stupid to you?

Wait, don’t answer that. That wasn’t one of my finer moments.

But here’s the point. I completely understand why you’re doing this. I’m sure too many people were taking advantage of the same day standby option to avoid paying higher fares. Sure, you book the 6p flight and standby for the early morning flight. Or you book the redeye and fly during the day. That’s money out of your pocket and into the pocket of the consumer. I may not like it, as a non-elite flier, but I get it.

So don’t feed me a line of crap about how American is doing this “as part of its efforts to streamline processes and the customer experience during flight departure. . . . ” Clearly that’s a benefit to you as well, but I don’t care what the benefit is to you. I care what the impact is for me. Please stop treating me like a child and tell me why you’re doing this. I want to see this headline:

“American Airlines Starts Charging for Same Day Standby Because You Bastards Won’t Pay Enough for a Ticket”

Now that would be refreshing.

The DOT has decided that the proposed Delta/US Airways slot swap in New York and Washington is perfectly acceptable . . . as long as the airlines agree to sell off a bunch of the slots to new entrants first. I will be shocked if the airlines go for it, and that means that basically nobody wins. Way to go, DOT. (You can read the full ruling here.)

First, let’s refresh our memories on the details of the plan. US Airways will give up 125 slot pairs at LaGuardia along with terminal space. In return, Delta will give up 42 slot pairs at Washington/National and route authorities to Sao Paulo and Tokyo/Narita. The idea was to let each airline play to its strengths in its largest markets.

Delta has been focused on “winning” New York, as we all know by now. This was going to let them serve more cities from New York than they do now, and they said it would also let them move some flights from JFK to LaGuardia in order to focus on the international hub operation at JFK. They were going to maintain flights to the markets which US Airways was leaving but they would use regional jets instead of turboprops.

Down in DC, US Airways was much more detailed in its plans. It was going to pick up the markets that Delta left, but it was also going to add service to 8 cities that don’t see nonstop service from National today. The Tokyo and Sao Paulo flights were independent, but important for them to grow their international presence in markets that are highly restricted.

The plan seemed very smart to me. There are a lot more US Airways loyalists in DC and Delta loyalists in New York, so they likely would have been happy to have the additional service from their preferred carriers. Also, additional cities would have seen nonstop service to LaGuardia and National that they don’t see today.

But now, my guess is that this plan blows up unless Delta and US Airways figure out a way to sway the DOT’s opinion. Why do I say that? Well, the DOT was fine with the plan as long as the airlines sell off some slots first. They had the biggest concern in Washington where they required Delta to sell a full third (14) of the 42 slot pairs first. US Airways will have to sell off 20 slot pairs in New York.

And these aren’t just slot sales. They are sales to airlines that hold less than 5% of the slots at each airport. No cheating allowed – the sales can’t be to any airline that is owned by Delta/US Airways or even one that codeshares with them. That pretty much means it has to be to a low cost carrier.

If you’re US Airways, would you agree to give up 14 slot pairs to an airline that is likely going to compete with you head-on just to get 28 slot pairs? I think not. What’s worse is that the low cost carrier would undoubtedly just add service on routes that already have flights today. The smaller communities would lose out.

So if this holds, I imagine it means that deal is off. In fact, they’ve said as much. US Airways President Scott Kirby said in a letter to the troops,

At this point, while we are still analyzing the DOT’s proposed ruling, we expect that if the DOT’s order is implemented as proposed (there is a 30-day public comment period before the ruling becomes final) the transaction will not go forward.

That means that pretty much everyone loses, except for the DOT which can continue to try to claim that it has saved the traveler from paying high fares, something that I think is questionable. They seem to rest on that fact that higher carrier concentration automatically means higher fares, even if most of the routes will continue to see service by one carrier, just a different one than before. (See my review of competition on these routes.) Is there any salvaging this? I hope so.

One of the complaints the DOT raised in its response is as follows:

While the carriers have made public some of their new intended services, including new service to small communities, they have not released all intended service changes.

However, it is apparent that is the proposed transaction is approved, the carriers will increase the number of markets they serve on a monopoly or dominant basis. As the two carriers reposition at LGA and DCA, there is no assurance that all markets currently being served by the departing carrier will be maintained by the new carrier.

Maybe if Delta and US Airways came out with specific service plans and included a guarantee to serve the smaller communities for a certain amount of time, the DOT would look at this differently. That would be the last gasp that I can imagine. Otherwise, it looks like the deal is dead, and nobody wins.