Cranky: So it’s back to the overscheduling issue. If that’s the case, then why do a 3 hour rule instead of slot controls?
Kate: First, some people think 3 hours is too much. Let me give you an example. Imagine if we had sat 179 minutes in San Francisco before takeoff for New York. Imagine that we sat 179 minutes in the plane and then we took off and flew for 4 hours and then we diverted to Austin. Then we took off and spent 179 minutes on taxi-in in New York and we’re still under the rule guidelines. And the airlines will have broken no law.

Cranky: Come on, that’s an incredibly rare situation where something like that would happen.
Kate: No it’s not that rare. And here’s my argument about that. I said have it your way, it’s rare. If it’s rare it will have no impact. The airlines wouldn’t be fighting this if it were so rare. The data you see doesn’t show everything.

Cranky: What is it missing?
Kate: International flights are not included at all. Also, it only includes domestic airlines that have at least 1% of the air travel revenue in the country. I would say that 300% of flights that are sitting on the tarmac are not included in the data.

Cranky: How do you know that?
Kate: There are approximately 150 air carriers in the US and only 19 report.

Cranky: Yeah, but most of the airlines that fly into slot constrained airports report. Who cares if some small airline reports in some tiny town?
Kate: I’ll give you an example. Spirit Air doesn’t report because they’re just under the threshold but they’ve had long delays recently.

Cranky: Back to the 3 hour rule. Why is this better way to handle it than just putting slots at the airports?
Kate: It would have been better if the government stepped in and regulated congestion effectively but they didn’t. The Bush Administration didn’t want to do that, so this is the only thing that can be done since the airlines have refused voluntarily to reduce capacity.

Cranky: But airlines have agreed to voluntarily reduce capacity. United and American did it in O’Hare. There are caps in place at Newark . . .
Kate: It was a failure. When the DOT asked if some airlines would reduce their schedules, they did and then other airlines grew.

Cranky: Ok, so let’s say that we have scheduled everything perfectly to match capacity. But what about when bad weather comes in and reduces capacity? You can’t schedule for that and delays can happen. What do you do?
Kate: Those types of problems are caused by extreme weather, and the GAO says that 7% of airline delays are caused by extreme weather. . .

Cranky: That’s not true. Look at San Francisco, for example. You get some fog in there and they lose half their capacity. That’s not extreme weather.
Kate: We have very few complaints from San Francisco. I’m talking about extreme weather that causes delays over 3 hours. The airlines and their station manager and operations manager have a meeting several times a day as to what’s going to be coded as weather. Occasionally you’re going to have mechanical delays and weather delays, but they can code it however they want.

Cranky: But do we really need this? I mean, haven’t things changed since you were stuck in Austin? Haven’t the airlines made changes?
Kate: They haven’t changed anything. Nothing has changed except they’re fighting us tooth and nail. Just on the last trip I was going to do a report card in Washington DC. I called Delta to make sure my flight was going to be on time and they said that there was going to be a four hour delay but they hadn’t notified me. They said they didn’t have a crew. I asked how they knew they’d have a crew in four hours? The agent said, “We should probably tell you it’ll be indefiinitely.” I think they just told me because I’m a consumer advocate.

Cranky: I know that if I was on a flight that hit the 3 hour mark, I’d rather wait 20 minutes to take off then go back to the gate and not be able to fly for days because the flight canceled.
Kate: But would you want to be there for nine hours?

Cranky: No, but come on. That’s incredibly uncommon if it happens at all.
Kate: Nine hour delays happen a lot.

Cranky: I’d like to see those numbers.
Kate: I don’t have them with me, but I’ll be back at my computer in a couple hours and I’ll send them to you.

Cranky: Great, I look forward to seeing that. Thanks for talking with me.

She did send me her data in the form of her 2009 Airline Report Card (PDF), but it didn’t look as bad as she said. Though she mentioned that nine hour delays “happen a lot,” there were only 13 delays of over 5 hours at the top 35 airports for all of 2009. In addition, for all the reporting airlines, there were 904 delays of over 3 hours. That may sound like a lot, but that was out of 6,450,285 flights. Yes, it’s a very small number.

Some of the things she mentions show a lack of understanding of how the system works. For example, when I mentioned that San Francisco fog problems can cause delays, she said that she doesn’t get many complaints from there so that’s not the problem. Of course that’s the case. The delay is usually on inbound flights because of the visibility issues, and airplanes have to be held at their departure point if it’s bad enough. That can cause congestion at some of the other airports, and if there’s weather elsewhere, it can snowball.

She acts like the airlines haven’t done anything since she was stuck on a plane, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Most airlines had some sort of policy before, but those have been strengthened with public policies and stronger chain-of-command to ensure it doesn’t happen. Is it perfect? Of course not. Airlines are incredibly complex and operate all over the world. It’s not possible to ensure that things never go wrong, but it is possible to keep working as hard as possible to reduce long delays from occurring.

Though Kate blames everything on airline scheduling practices, it’s the variability of operational capacity that makes things tougher. If the winds shift, your capacity can go down. If rain turns to ice, you have a mess on your hands. What this rule is going to do is encourage airlines to operate more conservatively to make sure they don’t face fines, and that will mean more cancellations.

It’s not like you can just magically open the door at 3 hours on the ground. Planes will now need to be called back starting around 2 hours to make sure that they can get out of line, taxi back and get doors open in time to avoid the fine. Once that door opens, the pilots are likely to time out. Without a crew, that flight is more likely to cancel and then people are stuck.

I continue to predict that we will see more cancellations and more unhappy passengers than we see today. If overscheduling really were the issue, this isn’t the way to handle it. That’s what slot controls are for, but they still will never be able to match demand with the ever-changing airport capacity during changing weather situations. It’s just the nature of the industry, and all airlines, airports, and air traffic control can do is keep working to try to make it run more smoothly. Blanket rules like this don’t help.

Regular readers of the blog know that I’m not a fan of the Passenger Bill of Rights. On the other side, we have Kate Hanni who thinks it’s absolutely necessary. When I saw this quote from Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org and stranded passenger back in 2006, I just had to talk to her.

Passenger advocates say that airlines don’t need to cancel flights to prevent tarmac delays. “This is solvable” without excess cancellations, said Kate Hanni, who founded Flyersrights.org after a flight she was on in 2006 was stranded.

Oh, really? I had to learn what her solution was here since nobody else seems to know it, so I called her up. Here’s the first part of our conversation. Part Two will go live tomorrow.

Cranky: Hello Kate. I saw you quoted as saying that this new rule shouldn’t be a big issue and that it won’t cause more cancellations, so I’m hoping you can explain how that’s the case.
Kate: They’re trying to convince the American people to be very afraid. See, they should have canceled flights already. They should have depeaked their schedules in New York, Atlanta, Dallas, and all the other airports where they schedule too many flights at one time but they haven’t done it. No measures have worked to get them to reduce their schedules. Are you aware of what the schedules look like at JFK? Are you aware that in the best of all conditions, the airlines can only have 81 flights per hour? Airlines overschedule in the morning. If they were to wait until 9 or 10am, this wouldn’t be a problem.

Cranky: Well, the problem is that people don’t want to fly at those times.
Kate: A lot of people would want to be flying at those times. The airlines drum up demand, get flights but they don’t have room. I know that if I could get a cheaper flight at 10am than 7am, I would.

Cranky: Leisure travelers yeah but business travelers not so much.
Kate: I’m a business traveler and I know. I have to fly from San Francisco to New York all the time. My husband is a business traveler as well and we would both fly at different times.

Cranky: But delays aren’t always the airlines’ fault. There are others responsible for these issues as well.
Kate: The airlines entirely control from the pushback of the plane out until the penalty box.

Cranky: But if they don’t push back, they don’t get in line for takeoff.
Kate: Trust me that I know exactly what’s going on. I have maps of the no-movement areas versus the movement areas. I’ve sat down with MIT professors and air traffic controllers and they say this is the way it is. It’s one of their own [airline] employees that’s telling that jet to push back from the gate and sit. Air traffic control has nothing to do with the movement of that jet.

Cranky: Wait, how often do you see an airplane push back but they don’t want to take off?
Kate: Approximately 10 times a day. Mostly in New York. We see it happen a lot at Reagan, even at Dallas. A lot at Chicago.

Cranky: But hold on. Why would an airline push this plane back and sit there for no reason?
Kate: Money. If they let you off the plane, if they leave you in the terminal, you have choices. You could migrate to a different airline. Migrate to a rental car, migrate to a train. You might say that I’ll try a different carrier.

Cranky: But no airline wants to push back and just sit there. Why would they push back if they weren’t trying to take off?
Kate: Because they’re clearing gates so incoming jets can clear gates. But the second reason is that they don’t want you leaving.

Cranky: Let me try to explain my question better. You say that the airlines are at fault for keeping airplanes sitting on the ground and it’s not air traffic control’s fault. Airlines want to get airplanes moving so they can pick up their next planeload of paying passengers, so why would they just push back and not take off if it’s not air traffic control causing the hold ups?
Kate: They do want to take off but they can’t because there are too many flights scheduled. Every morning at many many airports there is overscheduling in the best of all conditions and those planes are not going to take off. [The airlines] are going to grab revenue and then keep it.

Tomorrow, we’ll pick up where we left off. As you can see, Kate has basically boiled this down to, in her eyes, a simple issue of overscheduling. If the airlines would simply change their flights to go at off-peak times, everything would be solved. But there is a problem. Despite what Kate and her husband are willing to do, most business travelers, the bread and butter of most airlines, aren’t going to be that flexible. This is especially true on the short haul flights because people want to be able to do day trips. It’s even worse in New York because of all the competition.

Let’s forget that the afternoons are the worst times in New York and not the mornings and use Kate’s example. Right now, US Airways has its first flight to LaGuardia at 748a and its second at 1021a. If US Airways gets rid of that 748a flight, all those business travelers looking for a day trip will head over to Newark to take the 805a on Continental. US Airways is not going to do that.

If overscheduling truly is the biggest issue and not anything else (which is somewhat debatable), then the question should be why the government hasn’t instituted more strict slot controls instead of this rule. That would more directly address the problem instead of this rule, which will have far more unintended consequences for travelers. It will, of course, not help when weather goes bad and airport capacity gets reduced, so there’s no magic bullet.

These are the questions that I ask in Part Two, which will be posted tomorrow.

Dumbest Cities to Receive Federal Airline Service Subsidies – BNET
And here are the SCASDP grants I like the least. Wish they hadn’t been given the grants.

Finding Help Booking Travel and Managing Irregular Operations -View from the Wing
Gary Leff gives Cranky Concierge a ringing endorsement, and I couldn’t be happier.

Will a New Bill to Boost U.S. Tourism Help or Hurt? – ABC News
I tell ABC News why I’m not a fan of the Travel Promotion Act. Mainly, because it sucks.

fly early, fly happy – BNET
Why flying early in the day is better.

Airlines Shovel Out as Winter Weather Pummels Profits – BNET
Winter storms suck for passengers but they suck for airlines as well. In fact, they’re going to be draining profits, and Continental tells us just how much.

Midwest and Frontier Airlines Have Big Plans for Kansas City – BNET
Midwest and Frontier are finally moving in together in Kansas City, and it looks like the beginning of an experiment to see if they can grow the place.

Continental Airlines to charge extra for exit rows seats – Cleveland Plain-Dealer
I talk about why I think Continental is starting to charge for exit rows and why I don’t mind it.

Alaska Airlines Snubs Wi-Fi Provider Row 44 — Not to Mention Its Passengers – BNET
I waited awhile before commenting on Alaska’s choice to go with Aircell instead of Row 44 for inflight internet. I still don’t quite understand what happened.

First, I’d like to make it clear that this is in no way a regional airline issue. Pilots at nearly every airline commute and fatigue is an issue regardless of what size plane you’re flying, though it is more taxing to fly 10 short hops a day than it is to fly one long haul flight over the ocean. Also, at the regional level, low wages can make commuting more of a necessity than a choice depending upon where that pilot is based.

People often think of commercial pilots as making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but the reality is that it takes a lot of suffering to get even close to that point. After getting a private pilots license, most pilots will scrap along, building hours any way they can with the hope that an airline will pick them up. Sometimes, that first job may be at some sketchy cargo airline hauling crap on ancient airplanes in the middle of the night. For others, that job will be for a regional airline.

That regional job pays just about nothing. A first year First Officer at Colgan, for example, will earn $21 an hour. And that’s $21 per hour of actual flying, not time on the clock. If that guy flies 75 hours a month (that’s the minimum Colgan guarantees), then he’ll make $18,900 a year. Yes, it’s incredibly low, but that changes over time in a growing industry.

When the industry is growing, the opportunity for advancement comes quickly. For example, if a pilot is able to get on with Southwest, the best paying passenger airline in the US, he’ll make $54 an hour in his first year as a First Officer, more than doubling his annual pay. A Southwest captain tops out at $206 an hour, close to $200,000 a year with minimum flying levels. But in a shrinking industry like we have today, people don’t move up very frequently. They get stuck in their jobs and don’t have the opportunity to advance. That’s why you hear a lot of grumbling these days when you didn’t hear it as much before. The unfortunate problem for the pilot, however, is that there’s always someone waiting to take that spot.

In this shrinking industry, pilots get paid less for longer, and that makes creating a good life for oneself harder to do, especially if that pilot is based in a big and expensive city. Allowing a pilot to commute to his job is the only way to be able to pay someone that little and expect him to live. That’s why you see people commuting from either cheaper cities or from parents’ homes. It saves precious money. These newbies usually find a bunch of other pilots and they all go in on a crash pad in their base – whenever someone is in town they can crash there. It’s not ideal, but it works. So, should this be stopped?

Not in my opinion. Listen to what Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety for the FAA, had to say on the subject during Senate committee hearings on the Colgan Air accident in Buffalo.

As you can imagine, those pilots who commute responsibly are understandably concerned that they could be forced to relocate because of the irresponsible actions of a few. Should some sort of hard and fast commuting rule be imposed, it could result in families being separated, people being forced to sell homes at a loss, or even people being forced to violate child custody agreements. It is important to keep in mind these personal accounts because, to people not familiar with the airline industry, the issue of living in one city and working hundreds of miles away in another does not make sense. But in the airline industry, this is not only a common practice, it is one airline employees have come to rely on.

Very true. Do you think airlines are going to magically raise pay levels or pay for relocation? No way. And why should they? This process works just fine for those who are responsible. It’s those who take advantage of the system and show up exhausted after a long night of commuting that should be stopped. If a pilot can’t commute properly in order to show up rested for work, then maybe it’s not the right job for that person.

This is why the FAA is so important. The FAA needs to be vigilant in ensuring that airlines aren’t putting too much pressure on pilots to fly even if they aren’t up to it. There have certainly been times where that’s happened in the past, and I imagine it happens today. It’s a very hard thing to police for an airline. If management is too soft, then pilots may take advantage of the situation. If management is too hard, then safety becomes an issue.

This really is a job for the FAA, and it’s regulatory issues like these that should be their top priority. I’m eagerly waiting to see what they decide when it comes to rest and commuting rules, but hopefully they don’t give in to politics and simply ban commuting altogether.

[Original photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30816202@N02/ / CC BY 2.0]
[Original photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/articnomad/ / CC BY-SA 2.0 - Joshua Davis - jdavis.info]

What’s so great about Haneda? Take a look at this map.

It’s 24km by car south of Central Tokyo while Narita is 74km northeast of town. But the biggest reason airlines want to fly here? Limited competition, of course. With only four slot pairs to a close-in airport for one of the largest cities in the world, who wouldn’t want to fly there? And that has made for some pretty goofy applications, even with the annoying timing restrictions that are in place to protect Japanese carriers.

Here’s what we’ve seen so far:

• United wants to fly daily from San Francisco
• American wants to fly daily from JFK and LA
• Delta wants to fly daily from Seattle, Detroit, LA, and Honolulu
• Continental wants to fly daily from Newark and Guam
• Hawaiian wants to fly twice daily from Honolulu

That’s 11 applications for 4 slot pairs. You math majors can figure out that not everyone is going to get what they want. The DOT says that it will decide this way.

Our principal objective in this proceeding will be to maximize the public benefits that will result from introducing U.S.-flag carrier service in the U.S.-Haneda market. In this regard, we will consider which applicant or applicants will most likely offer and maintain service that best meets the needs of the traveling and shipping public.

Now they don’t say it here, but I imagine this is supposed to be the American public and not the general public. With that in mind, Continental can kiss its Guam application goodbye and Hawaiian and Delta can forget about Honolulu. See, those markets are more important for Japanese tourists than anything else. So while the flights would be good for the local economy, they certainly aren’t strong enough candidates to support the American traveling public.

That leaves us with 7 applications for four slots. We’re getting closer. If I were a betting man, I’d say that Delta has the inside track. The other carriers will all be entering into joint ventures with Japanese carriers who will have their own slots to use. Delta is the only one who won’t have that option. As I said, I doubt we’ll see them get the Honolulu option, and to be honest, Seattle may be a tougher sell as well, but LA and Detroit seem quite plausible. After that, they’ll probably spread the wealth around, I’d imagine.

My biggest question is this . . . is anyone going to want to use these flights? Haneda may be closer to Tokyo than Narita, but the flight times (at least the eastbound ones) simply suck. The Japanese are only allowing these slots to be used when Narita is under curfew. So flights on US carriers to and from Haneda can only operate between 10p and 7a. What’s worse? Departures to the continental US can only occur between midnight and 7a. That’s a killer.

Take a look at American’s proposed Haneda schedule to get a good idea of what we’re working with. Flights from LA would leave at 645p and arrive Haneda at 1005p. That’s not that bad – you can get in a full day of work in LA and fly out. But the return? It leaves Haneda at 1205a and will arrive LA at 610p. Nobody wants to take a flight that leaves at midnight when you end up losing a full day on your way to LA anyway. And a 610p arrival will make only a few regional connections available from LA. I’d rather travel a bit further and go to Narita at a normal hour.

The problem is similar for an east coast trip. Flights from JFK would leave at 720p and arrive at 1020p. Not bad if you want to get in a full day of work in New York. But the return? It actually leaves at 7a, the latest possible, with a 650a arrival in New York. That’s certainly better than a midnight departure with an 1150p arrival. At least this schedule allows for connections, but it wastes so much time. You end up having to spend a full night in Tokyo when you probably would rather board a plane and head home.

The saving grace, again, is that only a few flights will be allowed. So I imagine they’ll do ok, but it’s not going to be ideal.

American Airlines and the OJ Incident PR Fail – BNET
First there was Mr X, and now we have the OJ incident. American once again is missing an opportunity.

how cranky concierge can help you get to your wedding on time – BNET
Antibride liked my Cranky Concierge story, so I repurposed it for them this week.

Recent US Airways Route Restructuring Opens Opportunities for New Flying – BNET
Looks like all the canceled European flying is opening up new opportunities here. US Airways will start Philly to Anchorage next summer.

Port Columbus Airports Turn to Profit Sharing to Woo Airlines – BNET
Will profit sharing get airlines to add more flights? We’re about to find out.

Southwest Loses Its Social Media Guru, All Eyes on the Transition -BNET
Paula Berg has left Southwest, and now the airline faces a social media transition. This is something that many companies will be watching closely.

Airlines Fill Seats with Ease in November, Southwest Leaps Ahead – BNET
Southwest boosted its loads by 13.3 points in November. Yeehaw, that’s a lot.

Airlines Charging More for That Sought-After Seat – The New York Times
I voice the somewhat unpopular sentiment that charging for better seats on the plane is a good thing.

United Airlines Fights Mesa Air Group Over Airplanes (Part I) – BNET
United is suing Mesa over the introduction of 10 regional jets into service. This is the story of how they got to this point.

United Splits Its Widebody Fleet Order Between Boeing and Airbus – BNET
Why did United split its fleet order? Blame the manufacturers.

United Airlines Sues Mesa Air Group Over Airplanes (Part II) – BNET
And now, part 2 of our saga. In short, it seems to me that United wants out and Mesa made a mistake.

Radio Interview on the Noon Business Hour – WBBM 780 Chicago
I spoke with WBBM on Boeing’s prospects after the United order. My segment begins at the 25 minute mark and goes for about 3 minutes.

Japan and the US Near Aviation Open Skies Agreement, American and Delta Salivate – BNET
The Japanese market is one of the most fascinating to watch right now. Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening.

US Airways Pilots Oppose New York Slot Swap with Delta, Defy Logic – BNET
I roast the US Airways pilots for their decision to oppose the slot swap. It makes no sense.

best flying tip: arrive early – antibride.com
If you’re stressed about travels, the best thing you can do is arrive early. Just give yourself some extra time.

Airports in Boston and San Francisco Team Up with Twitter Promo – BNET
You don’t often see two airports getting together for promotional purposes, but that’s exactly what Boston and San Francisco are doing.

ExpressJet CEO Leaves for a Lesser Title at American – BNET
Looks like ExpressJet’s CEO has had enough of the regional biz, he’s heading to American to run maintenance. Hmm.

Airline Year Over Year Unit Revenue Changes Aren’t As Good as They Seem – BNET
Yes, the year-over-year comparisons are good, but that’s because things had fallen off a cliff last year. It’s not time to get excited just yet.

Capacity Restraint Leads to Fewer Empty Airline Seats in October – BNET
October traffic shows very few empty seats. Thank you, low fares.

US Airways Masks Frequent Flier Devaluations by Calling Them Customer Enhancements – BNET
US Airways has made over its frequent flier redemption, and while they claim its good for customers, that’s really just PR spin.

Holiday Season Is Upon Us – Flying Colors
One Cranky reader recommends Cranky Concierge for holiday travel for those who don’t already have their own airline dorks to help.

AirTran, SkyWest deal challenges traditional regional-airline model – Cleveland Plain Dealer
I was asked about my thoughts on whether this AirTran Skywest deal was truly innovative. Not so much.

American’s Firing of Mr X Becoming a Social Media Black Eye – BNET
American has fired Mr. X and the blogosphere is abuzz. Is American handling this right? I think you know the answer.

Melbourne Offers US Airways an Incentive that May Actually Work – BNET
You know I generally hate temporary airport incentives, but this is one that I don’t actually mind.

The Cardinal’s post was prompted by the AEA’s efforts to lobby the EU to get more access to credit for its member airlines to renew their fleets. The problem here, of course, is that if the airlines are too weak to have access to credit on their own, then they should simply have to wait to renew their fleets until they can afford it. He also criticized the AEA’s support of suspending slot rules at constrained airports so that legacy carriers could sit on their slots even if they weren’t using them. These are just a couple examples of the longstanding pattern for Europeans to want to prop up their failing carriers. Yes, I’m looking at you, Alitalia.

Apparently, the AEA didn’t like this post and they made that clear in a comment on the blog. Unfortunately, they also feel they’re so superior that they can’t be bothered to explain their position. I’m republishing their comment here:

Here in the AEA offices we fell off our seats laughing. EU institutions give preferential treatment to the AEA carriers? We wish. I’m afraid your correspondent’s insights into the European scene don’t go very deep.

We could explain, in nice easy-to-understand terms, why schedule continuity and predictability across successive timetable seasons is a Good Thing, but we can’t be bothered. If The Cardinal can’t work that out for himself, there’s not much point.

Anyway, thanks for the publicity. It’s nice to know that someone on the other side of the world has such a high opinion of our lobbying prowess. Keep believing.

It’s that second paragraph that gets me. I don’t think anyone would argue that schedule continuity and predictability are welcomed by travelers, but if legacy airlines can’t maintain that schedule continuity by actually operating their flights, then it seems quite clear to me that other carriers should be given the opportunity to use those slots if they have better uses for them.

Of course, the AEA doesn’t think it’s even worth explaining this to my readers, and for that, they should be ashamed. Do you think that blog readers are so stupid that they aren’t worth your time? You are sadly mistaken, if that’s the case, and it makes you look as out of touch as your efforts would imply. Yes, AEA, that is why you have earned the Cranky Jackass award.

I asked the Cardinal if he would like to comment, and sure enough, he did.

So AEA didn’t lobby for slot waivers and when the EU none-the-less offered them to the AEA (out of the goodness of its heart) the AEA didn’t actually accept the waivers?”

As we said, the EU has, in general, done a good job of being even-handed between LCCs and the AEA, but this is one instance in which they clearly erred on the side of the AEA. There are rules, the rules shouldn’t be waived just because AEA carriers haven’t done as good a job of keeping their financial noses clean as Ryanair, EasyJet, et al.

Amen. Maybe the AEA will actually be willing to respond to this one. If so, AEA, I’ve got a guest post with your name on it. Disagreements are always welcome here, but refusing to even enter the conversation makes you seem elitist and out of touch. Care to change that perception?