Remember the TARMAC RULE???? Unintended consequences!!!

[wcook]

There are still 150 more cancellations attributable to the new rule,

All you have is 150 more cancellations. You haven’t - nor has anyone else - shown that the new rule is the cause.

 

There are many reasons flights get canceled. And the rule doesn't require any flight to be canceled. They merely have to let people off the plane.

 

Given the airline's massive hatred of the rule, and their extensive lobbying against it, if they had lists of the thousands of flights the rule had made them cancel, they would be quick to publish it.

[Globaliser]

All you have is 150 more cancellations. You haven’t - nor has anyone else - shown that the new rule is the cause.

So if the new rule isn't the cause, what is? Even if you assume in the rule's favour that 5 out of every 6 extra canx are just bad luck because of particularly bad weather, so that 750 extra canx each month would have happened anyway, what's going on with the other 150 that are unexplained? Were the ashtrays full, or the coffee stale?

 

Just what do you think that the airlines have done to "adapt" to the new rule, if it's not doing this? It's exactly what it was predicted they would do, and the figures suggest that it's exactly what is happening.

[wcook]

So if the new rule isn't the cause, what is?

Like you, I don't know what caused the cancellations.

[greatam]

Just a few posts ago, you were using the JetBlue incident as an example of how it's not the airline's fault; instead union rules were to blame. Now it's "JetBlue's screw ups". How many other situations have you - and the airlines - blamed on union/government rules, when there were really airline screwups.

 

If the airlines spend more time ensuring such screwups don't happen, and less time fighting the tarmac rule, I might have more sympathy.

 

In the most infamous JetBlue incident, the airline COULD NOT get steps to the plane, could not get the toilets serviced, could not get food/water to the plane UNLESS both the airport (work rules) and the union (union rules) signed off on the deal. Overcoming the airport rules at JFK requires four different agencies to concur-Port Authority Operations Dept, OSHA, Community Affairs (which works with the Mayor's office AND Port Authority) and the NY Occupational Safety office (NYCOSH). Then you have to deal with the union, who may or may not sign off on their workers on the ramp during ground stops. The unions DO NOT have to force their employees to work against their contracts.

 

JetBlue SHOULD have started making phone calls much earlier than they did. This I have stated in previous posts ("FINALLY"). IF the passengers would have had food and serviced toilets, there most likely would not have been such a big fuss.

 

You keep bringing up JetBlue (which was the basis of Senator Schumer's legislation). JetBlue screwed up by NOT calling for help earlier. The CEO of JetBlue admitted it and apologized profusely.

 

What about other severely affected flights which were totally out of the airlines control? Just a few "famous" incidents:

The BA "stuck because of immigration" flight, the TWO US Air flights STUCK because of ATC disruption (consecutive days in 2009), the Continental commuter jet that was diverted to Rochester by ATC, then could not get passengers off the plane as they had NO ground services in Rochester and were totally dependent on other airlines/the airport itself to help them out. Masaba ground services basically refused until the media and officials got involved to help out the passengers. The DOT states emphatically that Continental employees did everything they possibly could to alleviate the situation. They were hamstrung by other's actions. Continental was fined and punished, THEN the truth came out.

 

Punishing passengers and airlines with a "feel good" rule is clearly just another band-aid. Most passengers (those that fly occasionally) just BELIEVE that flight cancellations are the norm. Very few realize their flight may have been canceled merely because of a predatory rule trying to "protect" them.

 

My analysts think we should just automatically add $300 to every air freight shipment to cover POTENTIAL costs. That to me again punishes consumers. I don't make the final financial decisions for accessorial charges but if our bottom line is seriously impacted because of the air freight shipments and this new rule, I will certainly encourage it. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!!!!

[wcook]

In the most infamous JetBlue incident, the airline COULD NOT get steps to the plane, could not get the toilets serviced, could not get food/water to the plane UNLESS both the airport (work rules) and the union (union rules) signed off on the deal.

So now we are back to blaming the union??? Sorry, I can't follow such ping-ponging discussion. We'll just have to disagree.

[waterbug123]

 

Pre May 2010, we EXPECTED the planes to leave. Our freight was protected while it was in the plane. Once in a while, we had to send either a driver back to JFK to retrieve freight (some of it ruined on occasion) or one of our night NYC dispatchers (both with CDL's).

 

If we did it the same way now, we would have to keep more than one driver on "standby" which means paying them anyhow.

 

I am curious to know..... of all this overtime pay, extra fuel etc. that has contributed to your increased costs because of now having drivers wait until the flights take off, what % of the time does the flight actually take off and the extra costs turn out to be for naught, vs. the % of time the flight is cancelled and the driver's presence saves perishables from spoiling?

[Globaliser]

Like you, I don't know what caused the cancellations.

Well, let's see.

 

A new rule is going to come into effect. It's intended to reduce the number of times that aircraft have long tarmac delays after departure and before takeoff by imposing a draconian penalty if it happens. There are advance warnings that this will lead airlines to increase the number of cancellations to try to eliminate the possibility of having to pay that penalty.

 

The new rule comes into effect. The number of long tarmac delays drops. The number of cancellations goes up.

 

Let me have a think: Yes, it must be full ashtrays and stale coffee.

[wcook]

Anytime a new rule like this is proposed, business respond by predicting bad things. Sometimes the bad things happen and the businesses say, "See, I told you so." Sometimes the bad things don't happen and the businesses keep quiet.

 

Looking at other factors, there was a 50/50 chance cancellations would go up. Cancellations went up. Due to the rule? Or due to other reasons? Or a combination of both? You are confident you know the answer. I don't.

 

For fun, over the past 20 years, how many times did cancellations gone up? How many of those increases were due to the tarmac rule?

[spongerob]

As much as I hate to disappoint some of you, the statitistics at FAA.gov show that there has been no overall change in the frequency of cancelled flights in the United States since the introduction of the tarmac rules compared to the five years prior to the rule. JFK has gone up 28%, but cancellation rates have fallen at other major airports (ORD, IAH, for example) and it all comes out in the wash.

 

Therefore, like most things that politicians use to divert attention away from their failings, it's much ado about nothing. Unless you use JFK a lot, but even then I think that there are extenuating circumstances such as weather and maybe even construction.

[Globaliser]

Cancellations went up. Due to the rule? Or due to other reasons? Or a combination of both? You are confident you know the answer. I don't.

I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the duck test here, considering the airlines' extremely limited number of options for avoiding the penalties. After all, this isn't the first time that this phenomenon has been noticed or commented on.

 

But I agree with spongerob about one thing: This is easy stuff for the politicians to do by way of a distraction. It pleases unknowledgeable and infrequently-flying voters, and gives an impression that they're "doing something", but is really there to disguise their lack of action on the things that really matter and could really make a substantive difference. In the meantime, frequent flyers - who are more likely to get trapped in a long tarmac delay than the once-a-year crowd - ask for the rule to go away.

[greatam]

I am curious to know..... of all this overtime pay, extra fuel etc. that has contributed to your increased costs because of now having drivers wait until the flights take off, what % of the time does the flight actually take off and the extra costs turn out to be for naught, vs. the % of time the flight is cancelled and the driver's presence saves perishables from spoiling?

 

About 10% of the specific flights we use canceled overall. 17% average during the worst of the weather. 27% during one particularly rough period this winter. We DO NOT ship unless it absolutely positively HAS to be there during extremely bad weather.

 

Before anyone jumps all over and say we should just take our chances, we generally ship daily from JFK to both LAX and MIA. This includes 2 out of 4 Sundays. The figures we used to compute the waiting factor (should we or should we not keep the drivers waiting) early last fall when the analysts noticed additional cancellations were 600 flights per year with a 10% cancellation factor. That is 60 flights.

 

IF only 50% of those flights contain highly perishable products and there was damage due to not being at the airport to retrieve the freight within 1/2 hour, we are subject to $2500 insurance deductibles on all product. 30 x $2500=$75,000. We were just about break even on the overtime by making them wait. We also ship some product that has a $5000 deductible (certain imported flowers, one specialty cheese which is imported-$63.85 per pound wholesale and some of the specialty chocolates which can run as high as $108 per pound). In addition to the actual hard costs above, we generally do not get our freight money for the pickup/sorting/packing for air shipment. AND we have to make a free pickup, repack/re-sort to try again if the first shipment is ruined and the customer allows us to try again.

 

Our insurance company certainly has the right to cancel us if we have too many claims. It is not easy to find another insurance carrier if you have had many, many cargo claims. We also have a business reputation to protect as well as customers that we actually care about and want to do the best for. Delivering melted chocolate or frozen flowers is NOT their problem.

 

Hope this answered your question.

[waterbug123]

About 10% of the specific flights we use canceled overall.

 

Before anyone jumps all over and say we should just take our chances, we generally ship daily from JFK to both LAX and MIA. This includes 2 out of 4 Sundays. The figures we used to compute the waiting factor (should we or should we not keep the drivers waiting) early last fall when the analysts noticed additional cancellations were 600 flights per year with a 10% cancellation factor. That is 60 flights.

 

IF only 50% of those flights contain highly perishable products and there was damage due to not being at the airport to retrieve the freight within 1/2 hour, we are subject to $2500 insurance deductibles on all product. 30 x $2500=$75,000. We were just about break even on the overtime by making them wait.

 

That explanation didn't really answer my question. It cites overall, general statistics, and approximations. I was hoping you could tell me what % of flights that you used for shipping actually cancelled after freight was loaded, and what % of those actually had perishable items included that would have spoiled quickly.

[Shak]

I have enjoyed reading the back and forth discussion on this thread. Today Travel Insider published a couple of articles on the subject that you all may find interesting.

 

The first article tells what are the New Airline Passenger Rights.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/airlinemismanagement/newdotconsumerprotections.htm

 

The second article gives some of the dialogue between the airlines and DOT in the formulation of this new legistation. This article is in two parts so be sure to read both.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/airlinemismanagement/dotembarrassesairlines.htm

 

Shak

[greatam]

That explanation didn't really answer my question. It cites overall, general statistics, and approximations. I was hoping you could tell me what % of flights that you used for shipping actually cancelled after freight was loaded, and what % of those actually had perishable items included that would have spoiled quickly.

 

 

Did you read the first paragraph? 10% overall, 17% from Dec-March 15 overall and 27% during the two really rough weeks of weather when NYC was almost paralyzed. ONLY computed on the flights we normally use after 4PM to MIA and LAX.

 

My analysts also do not count as canceled a flight that is actually canceled BUT we can get our freight on a later flight without returning to the yard, putting the freight into cold storage and then returning to JFK on another day. That is called truck ordered, not used and must be figured into all computations per our tariff or we cannot bill accessorial charges. Only sometimes do we have the luxury of returning from JFK after a flight is canceled and sending it out the next day. Computing it the way we have to would make the entire overall percentage generally higher for our specific flights.

 

That particular scenario (waiting for another flight) happened 9 times in the first quarter with one really expensive incident. Our driver ran out of hours waiting for the first flight to leave (eventually canceled), then the wait time until the next flight (almost 3 hours), then waiting for the last flight of the day to leave. We actually had to send another driver out to JFK with one of the company vehicles to relieve the first driver. Almost $900 in unnecessary costs just to get the freight off the ground. Unintended consequences that impact the general public. Like so many laws and policies (using food to fuel cars is a real biggie and is heavily impacting food prices), the powers that be never seem to think far enough ahead to see how their rules/policies impact the average American and take directly out of their pockets.

[Globaliser]

Today Travel Insider published a couple of articles on the subject that you all may find interesting.

Most of all for the fact that he is clearly not an "insider" and doesn't understand airline operations.

[frugaltravel]

Most of all for the fact that he is clearly not an "insider" and doesn't understand airline operations.

 

Without even reading the articles, one can interpret this as, "I don't agree with what was written, so it must be wrong, so let's attack the writer." :D

[greatam]

Most of all for the fact that he is clearly not an "insider" and doesn't understand airline operations.

 

Amen!! The guy who writes that blog was a top union official in New Zealand. Moved to the USA as a computer salesperson and started selling travel packages to Australia/New Zealand.

 

Other than dealing with Qantas on his travel packages, he has little experience in "behind the scene" airline ops. Not an airline consultant, not an former airline ops guy.

[Globaliser]

Without even reading the articles, one can interpret this as, "I don't agree with what was written, so it must be wrong, so let's attack the writer."

Certainly, if he talks drivel.

 

There's been a better discussion on this thread than in the snide and unanalytical sneers that his commentary is composed of.

[kenish]

Another consequence of the tarmac rule is the "ripple effect". For example, a specific aircraft is scheduled to fly JFK-LAX-JFK (a typical pattern). Due to possiblity of a tarmac delay the JFK departure is cancelled. That results in no aircraft at LAX for the return flight which has to be cancelled too. Many people don't understand that airlines don't keep hangars full of spare aircraft waiting around. Long ago they had 1-2 planes on standby at strategic points but no longer with all the cost-cutting. So, the number of cancellations, out-of-position planes and crew, and displaced passengers starts cascading.

 

Solution? If I were king of an airline I'd have a policy to inform passengers at check-in or before boarding when there is the possiblity of a tarmac delay of more than an hour. Passengers would also be provided with estimated length of the delay (but cautioned it is an estimate with factors totally out of the airline's control). I'd give them an option to waive any tarmac delay rights and board the flight, or stay behind for rebooking. That would give the passenger a choice depending on the circumstances and the time criticality of their travels. It gets crew, planes, and cargo to the right location (hopefully).

[wcook]

Solution? If I were king of an airline I'd have a policy to inform passengers at check-in or before boarding when there is the possiblity of a tarmac delay of more than an hour. Passengers would also be provided with estimated length of the delay (but cautioned it is an estimate with factors totally out of the airline's control). I'd give them an option to waive any tarmac delay rights and board the flight, or stay behind for rebooking. That would give the passenger a choice depending on the circumstances and the time criticality of their travels. It gets crew, planes, and cargo to the right location (hopefully).

It's a good plan. Not quite as simple as "let people off the plane," but it's better than nothing.

[vjmatty]

Per my example in the previous post, AA 21 was SIX minutes from having to cancel the flight per the Tarmac Rule. Would it REALLY make a difference in passenger comfort to have the plane leave SIX minutes AFTER 3 hours?

 

That is like asking if a half-inch really matters on the carry-on limits.... well then, why not an inch? Or two? Come on, it's just a little handle, that won't take up any room if the handle on the case next to it is on the same side ;)

[Globaliser]

That is like asking if a half-inch really matters on the carry-on limits.... well then, why not an inch? Or two? Come on, it's just a little handle, that won't take up any room if the handle on the case next to it is on the same side

And that, of course, is the difficulty inherent whenever you turn a matter of policy, practice and discretion into a hard-edged rule.

[wcook]

Per my example in the previous post, AA 21 was SIX minutes from having to cancel the flight per the Tarmac Rule.

Per the Tarmmac Rule? The Tarmac Rule doesn't require flights to be cancelled.

[greatam]

Per the Tarmmac Rule? The Tarmac Rule doesn't require flights to be cancelled.

 

Once the plane leaves the gate, it is either cancel the flight or be subject to enormous fines. THAT was the exact scenario AA found themselves in. SIX MINUTES until the 3 hour time limit to deplane passengers which could subject AA to fines of over 6 MILLION dollars. If that isn't the Tarmac rule, I don't know what is. United tried to proactively give the passengers a choice-stay on the plane or deplane without canceling the flight. United got fined $12,500 for filing a FALSE REPORT. What other airline is even going to try that scenario? It is cancel the flight or go. There are no other options.

 

This from the COO of US Airways.

 

"We do think that a sizable portion of those flights would have gone had they been extended the delay even further, because in most cases those are flights that are close to going," Isom said. "That is a negative impact of the long-onboard rule. We do think it costs passengers, and we do think it costs us."

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2011/03/06/20110306airlines-weather-tarmac-rule.html#ixzz1L1XsTfKW

[frugaltravel]

Once the plane leaves the gate, it is either cancel the flight or be subject to enormous fines.

 

The fines are not automatic. The wording is "up to" $XX/passenger.

 

This from the COO of US Airways.

 

"We do think that a sizable portion of those flights would have gone had they been extended the delay even further, because in most cases those are flights that are close to going," Isom said. "That is a negative impact of the long-onboard rule. We do think it costs passengers, and we do think it costs us."

 

"Think"? "Sizeable portion" (whatever that means)? He must be a politician. :D:D And if he is the COO and doesn't even know if it costs the airline money, chances are either it doesn't or he needs to be replaced.