Flight Arriving Way Early

[evandbob]

20 hours ago, LandlockedCruiser01 said:

 

 

Flying in the day before isn't about being a "nervous nellie".  It's more like insurance against missing the ship in case your flight goes haywire.  Airlines nowadays delay or cancel flights, or mishandle your luggage, however they please, with no repercussions.  Do you want that to be the reason you miss your cruise?  Highly unlikely!  By flying in the day before, or at least super-early the same day, you give yourself a time buffer to make contingency plans. 

 

A spartan but safe hotel room costs about $150 a night.  With the cruise fare, the drink packages, the excursions, and the cruise supplies you're already buying, it's not that much.  Plus, it's not like you're wasting that money.  You get value out of it: seeing a part of a new city, and trying new foods, like ceviche in Florida or In-N-Out Burger in California.

 

So funny.  I said I flew in the morning of the cruise possibly 35 or 40 times from NYC to MIA or FLL and that part gets left out of the quote.

 

$150 was about 15% of my solo cruise fare, so multiple that by 35 or 40 times ($5,250 to 6,000). That's an additional 6 cruises for me.  And I said I could always absorb a cancellation of just $1,000 since I generally book multiple cruises or vacations a year.

 

Here's the ridiculous part:  On at least a 1/2 dozen occasions , I was leaving JFK or LGA on the 1st plane out to MIA or FLL with a confirmed seat on the morning of the cruise, and there were folks clamoring for a seat since their day before plane was cancelled due to weather and they were now stand-bys at the airport.

 

And ceviche is a new food?  Not in NYC.  Perhaps you meant poisson cru?

[SRF]

18 hours ago, Zach1213 said:

 

I'd like to argue against this point, to some extent. Airlines don't delay or cancel flights for the hell of it. They do everything they can to operate on-time and get you from point a to point b, because a plane on the ground does not make money. Also, assuming you're viewing this from an American point of view, there are legal protections in place for the passengers, though they are nowhere as strong as the EU. 

 

Although one interesting unintended consequence came from the law limiting time sitting on board before departing.

 

To avoid those penalties, marginal flights get weather canceled.  And with a weather cancellation, the airline is not responsible for meals or lodging.

 

Once that law was enacted, flight cancellations went up.

[SRF]

19 minutes ago, evandbob said:

So funny.  I said I flew in the morning of the cruise possibly 35 or 40 times from NYC to MIA or FLL and that part gets left out of the quote.

 

$150 was about 15% of my solo cruise fare, so multiple that by 35 or 40 times ($5,250 to 6,000). That's an additional 6 cruises for me.  And I said I could always absorb a cancellation of just $1,000 since I generally book multiple cruises or vacations a year.

 

Here's the ridiculous part:  On at least a 1/2 dozen occasions , I was leaving JFK or LGA on the 1st plane out to MIA or FLL with a confirmed seat on the morning of the cruise, and there were folks clamoring for a seat since their day before plane was cancelled due to weather and they were now stand-bys at the airport.

 

And ceviche is a new food?  Not in NYC.  Perhaps you meant poisson cru?

 

In your case, it makes sense.  But to a family of 4, on their once in a lifetime cruise vacation, not so much. 

 

It can also vary if you have status on the airline you are using.  I got weather canceled (after being rebooked to later flights twice in one day).  But was scheduled out the next morning on the first flight.  I met a family going to the same hotel, who had been cancelled off the same flight (the 3rd one for me), and they were booked out 3 DAYS later.

 

As for cerviche, no it is not a new food.  It is a very old food from several cultures.  It basically consists of seafood, that is chopped up, mixed with a few things, then has lemon or lime juice added.  The acid in the citrus juice "cooks" the seafood.  VERY tasty.

[LandlockedCruiser01]

48 minutes ago, evandbob said:

$150 was about 15% of my solo cruise fare, so multiple that by 35 or 40 times ($5,250 to 6,000). That's an additional 6 cruises for me.  And I said I could always absorb a cancellation of just $1,000 since I generally book multiple cruises or vacations a year.

...

And ceviche is a new food?  Not in NYC.  Perhaps you meant poisson cru?

My situation is somewhat different.  I cruise once a year at most, so when I do, I want everything to go perfectly or nearly so.  So I'm willing to pay $150 extra to give myself that assurance.  And checking out a new city and trying local foods is a very nice added bonus.

 

I was specifically referring to ceviche.  Chicago is landlocked (hence my name) if you don't count Lake Michigan, so it's hard to find good, inexpensive ceviche or other seafood dishes.  So it's not new to me per se, it's just not something I eat often.  Fish and chips in Chicago are excellent, though.

 

30 minutes ago, SRF said:

Although one interesting unintended consequence came from the law limiting time sitting on board before departing.

 

To avoid those penalties, marginal flights get weather canceled.  And with a weather cancellation, the airline is not responsible for meals or lodging.

 

Once that law was enacted, flight cancellations went up.

I'm kind of OK with that.  I'd rather have my flight get canceled and make a contingency plan, rather than be stuck on the tarmac for 6 hours or more, not knowing when my flight will actually take off.  All with no access to food, water or restrooms, getting cramps in my legs, and being surrounded by short-tempered, trigger-happy flight attendants.  One false move, and they report you to authorities just to stick it to you.

 

My main problem is airlines blaming the "weather" for everything.  Which is a ploy to get out of giving the passengers what they're legitimately owed.

Edited December 18, 2019 by LandlockedCruiser01

[SRF]

3 hours ago, LandlockedCruiser01 said:

I'm kind of OK with that.  I'd rather have my flight get canceled and make a contingency plan, rather than be stuck on the tarmac for 6 hours or more, not knowing when my flight will actually take off.  All with no access to food, water or restrooms, getting cramps in my legs, and being surrounded by short-tempered, trigger-happy flight attendants.  One false move, and they report you to authorities just to stick it to you.

 

My main problem is airlines blaming the "weather" for everything.  Which is a ploy to get out of giving the passengers what they're legitimately owed.

 

The thing was, getting stuck on the airplane for a long time occurred about 8 - 10 times per year, for the WHOLE country, and all the flights (about 37 MILLION in 2013).   So about a 1 in 3.7 million chance of it happening to any given flight.

 

In comparison, there is a 1 in 700,000 chance of you being struck by lightening in a year.

 

But because of the one high profile story, and an act of Congress, with draconian penalties for it occurring, hundred of flights per year are cancelled.

[LandlockedCruiser01]

52 minutes ago, SRF said:

The thing was, getting stuck on the airplane for a long time occurred about 8 - 10 times per year, for the WHOLE country, and all the flights (about 37 MILLION in 2013).   So about a 1 in 3.7 million chance of it happening to any given flight.

 

In comparison, there is a 1 in 700,000 chance of you being struck by lightening in a year.

 

But because of the one high profile story, and an act of Congress, with draconian penalties for it occurring, hundred of flights per year are cancelled.

 

Be that as it may, I support any acts of Congress that protects the general public from a monopoly's gross negligence.  Airlines have a monopoly on travel: driving is impractical for over a certain distance, buses are iffy, and Amtrak is a joke.  So flying is the only way to do long-distance travel.  And stranding passengers on the tarmac for 6 hours isn't just gross negligence, but criminal negligence.  If the airlines aren't penalized for it, their treatment of customers will get worse and worse.  Oh wait.

 

What we need is another act of Congress that limits the number of flights per year airlines are allowed to delay or cancel.  Or sell them cancellation credits, like carbon credits.  Better yet, just regulate the airline industry again.  But that will never happen, because flyers don't have the lobbyists that airlines have.

Edited December 18, 2019 by LandlockedCruiser01

[SRF]

17 minutes ago, LandlockedCruiser01 said:

 

Be that as it may, I support any acts of Congress that protects the general public from a monopoly's gross negligence.  Airlines have a monopoly on travel: driving is impractical for over a certain distance, buses are iffy, and Amtrak is a joke.  So flying is the only way to do long-distance travel.  And stranding passengers on the tarmac for 6 hours isn't just gross negligence, but criminal negligence.  If the airlines aren't penalized for it, their treatment of customers will get worse and worse.  Oh wait.

 

What we need is another act of Congress that limits the number of flights per year airlines are allowed to delay or cancel.  Or sell them cancellation credits, like carbon credits.  Better yet, just regulate the airline industry again.  But that will never happen, because flyers don't have the lobbyists that airlines have.

 

So, you would rather wait many hours in the terminal, then be told your flight is cancelled, see you tomorrow?

 

In the case that started this, there were things out of the airline's control.  Dealing the terminal and the time of day and staffing, where they were not allowed to come back and off load the people.  But now, the airline is penalized.

 

As with many of these, what you see in the news, is NOT the whole story.

 

WOW, limited delays and cancellations?  And when will weather control be available?  You are going to legislate mother nature?

 

 

[LandlockedCruiser01]

16 minutes ago, SRF said:

So, you would rather wait many hours in the terminal, then be told your flight is cancelled, see you tomorrow?

...

WOW, limited delays and cancellations?  And when will weather control be available?  You are going to legislate mother nature?

It's the lesser of two evils.  I'd rather wait in a spacious, reasonably comfortable terminal, with unfettered access to restrooms, water, and food, as well as the ability to walk around or lie down.  As opposed to a ridiculously cramped airplane, practically strapped down to my seat, surrounded by flight attendants who are the judge, the jury, and the executioner.  Besides, when an airplane sits on the tarmac for that many hours, the odds of its flight happening that day are very, very slim.

 

24 minutes ago, SRF said:

WOW, limited delays and cancellations?  And when will weather control be available?  You are going to legislate mother nature?

Now you're taking my argument out of context.  "Weather" is one thing.  But when every delay and cancellation has to be accounted for, and the total number is limited, airlines will think twice before doing them willy-nilly.  The limit can be high enough to allow for a reasonable number of free passes.

[Tapi]

6 hours ago, evandbob said:

 

So funny.  I said I flew in the morning of the cruise possibly 35 or 40 times from NYC to MIA or FLL and that part gets left out of the quote.

First flights of the day, specially from a hub, are under more pressure to depart on time because if they don’t, it sets off a cascading effect of delays for the rest of the day. 
 

With that said, delays and cancellations do happen even on first flights of the day. You may think that you have a great track record and can speak from experience because you’ve taken 35-40 flights without problems, but statistically speaking, you don’t have nearly enough experience or data to categorically encourage others to fly on the day of the cruise. 

 

I’m an airline pilot and I would NEVER encourage anybody to fly on the day of the cruise. More than once, I’ve watched people cry at the gate when they realize that they won’t make it to their cruise departing later that same day. One of my most recent ones was on a flight from LGA to MCO, when an elderly couple missed their transatlantic cruise aboard the Disney Magic due to visibility that was below takeoff minimums, and we had to wait for hours before the flight was officially canceled. Watching this old woman crying at the gate made me so sad, but at the same time I thought that she should’ve known better. 
 

You’re correct in saying that you’ve saved enough over the year in hotel rooms to pay for other cruises. Maybe for you it’s not a big deal if you miss a cruise and you justify your actions based on money saved. But that’s like not buying car insurance and then bragging about how much you’ve saved over the years because you haven’t had a car accident yet. Most people I know (specially families) wouldn’t want to chance ruining a vacation that they’ve said for, sometimes for a year if not more, for the sake of saving $150 for hotel accommodations. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Tapi

[evandbob]

Tapi, I don't think I was encouraging anyone to do anything.  I was just relating my experience, which does stand in contrast to what the CC consensus states and cannot be denied.  In fact, in other posts I've written about either morning of flights going to the cruise port city or return flights at 10AM I have stated that loyalty status gets me off the ship early, Global Entry and TSA pre check speed up Customs exiting the cruise terminal and when entering the airport security gates.  NYC to MIA or FLL are non stop direct flights almost like shuttles and with carry on luggage I can switch to earlier flights when I arrive to an almost empty terminal at 8am.

 

I guess now that I can drive to Tampa, MIA or FLL the morning of the cruise, some will try to tell me that highway accidents , car breakdowns and hijackings can occur so I should leave a day or two before as well?????

 

I started my original post on this by questioning why no one raised the issue of delays and cancellations with a red eye flight that arrives early at the port city since that always comes up when morning of the cruise flights get mentioned and it has veered from that track.

 

But I have never suggested that someone do what I have done, I have only stated what my experience has been.

[SRF]

16 hours ago, LandlockedCruiser01 said:

It's the lesser of two evils.  I'd rather wait in a spacious, reasonably comfortable terminal, with unfettered access to restrooms, water, and food, as well as the ability to walk around or lie down.  As opposed to a ridiculously cramped airplane, practically strapped down to my seat, surrounded by flight attendants who are the judge, the jury, and the executioner.  Besides, when an airplane sits on the tarmac for that many hours, the odds of its flight happening that day are very, very slim.

 

Now you're taking my argument out of context.  "Weather" is one thing.  But when every delay and cancellation has to be accounted for, and the total number is limited, airlines will think twice before doing them willy-nilly.  The limit can be high enough to allow for a reasonable number of free passes.

 

As I stated, the incident that caused this law, the airport would not allow the aircraft to return. There were no services (food/drink) open, and no personnel to deal with the passengers.

 

As for limiting cancellations, then you have a bad weather year??????  Even a bad weather day.  I was traveling one day where there were lines of thunderstorms to the south and west of the mid Atlantic area.  Almost ALL flights in and out of the area ended up cancelled, for the entire day.

 

You seem to think the airlines prefer to cancel flights.  And I have seen in some countries, they do delay or cancel flights until they are full.  But all the US carriers, cancelling even a single flight has HUGE consequences for operations.  That airplane that was going from A to B to C, is now stuck at A, so how do they fly the flight from B to C?  What about crews?  The crew that is stuck in A, was to fly from B to D, so who flies that one now?   And the passengers that were going A to B then to E, miss their B to E flight, and the airline has to find them space on later flights. which are already full.

 

Even one cancelled or seriously delayed flight causes MANY issues for the airline.

[mayleeman]

If I flew in and out of NYC to Miami, with over 120 planes flying that route every day, I wouldn't worry either. Try flying out of cities where there is one flight per day, or flying routes where connections must be made, or from the west coast where your scheduled plane has to come from Denver in winter. I know that NYers think they define the universal American experience, but when there are few or no alternatives, creating your own options is essential.

[evandbob]

On 12/19/2019 at 10:41 PM, mayleeman said:

If I flew in and out of NYC to Miami, with over 120 planes flying that route every day, I wouldn't worry either. Try flying out of cities where there is one flight per day, or flying routes where connections must be made, or from the west coast where your scheduled plane has to come from Denver in winter. I know that NYers think they define the universal American experience, but when there are few or no alternatives, creating your own options is essential.

 

Big assumption about NYers, but in other posts I have stressed that the NY to FLL or MIA do act like shuttles, they are direct and non stop only, I use carry on luggage and that anyone dealing with a secondary airport or connecting flights or with carry on luggage would not be able to do what I have do so successfully over dozens of trips.

 

Why do folk think I am suggesting that they can do what I have done?  Is it wrong to post about what my own experience has been?

 

No one has answered my original question on this thread - why hasn't the issues of flight delays, cancellations, etc. come up on this early morning arrival when it universally appears on every other thread about flying in the morning of a cruise?

Edited December 21, 2019 by evandbob

[mayleeman]

34 minutes ago, evandbob said:

Big assumption about NYers...

 

I am pretty sure that the idea that NYers act as if they are the center of things is not my "big assumption". Maybe you missed this cover known as "A New Yorker's View of the World"? And you are the one who called people warning about the harms of same day flights "nervous nellies" while pointing out you have never had those problems--flying from NY. Insulting people for being cautious is not a convincing argument when you don't face the travel disadvantages lots of other people do.

 

People have answered your question, by the way--because a flight arriving at 1 a.m. might well allow enough time for delays or rerouting.  

Edited December 21, 2019 by mayleeman

[John Bull]

35 minutes ago, evandbob said:

 

 

No one has answered my original question on this thread - why hasn't the issues of flight delays, cancellations, etc. come up on this early morning arrival when it universally appears on every other thread about flying in the morning of a cruise?

 

 

I don't see a 1.00am arrival as "flying in same-day", I see it as "flying in late the previous day."

And I'm out by only an hour.

OP has a window of about 14 hours. 

 

JB 

[TNcruising02]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:17 PM, ryanwinkel said:

I'm going to take your advice and get a hotel. I would rather spend the money and get rest and be able to party on the first cruise day.

 

Thank you

That's a good choice to book the hotel.  I always fly in a day early because of my experience with delays. One time, because of delays, I arrived at my hotel in Miami after midnight when my cruise was the next day.  Even though we arrived so late, we were still able to get enough sleep that night so that the next day wasn't miserable.  Hotels close to the airport are usually very inexpensive.

Edited December 22, 2019 by TNcruising02

[LandlockedCruiser01]

6 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

That's a good choice to book the hotel.  I always fly in a day early because of my experience with delays. One time, because of delays, I arrived at my hotel in Miami after midnight when my cruise was the next day.  Even though we arrived so late, we were still able to get enough sleep that night so that the next day wasn't miserable.

 

I've been lucky with delays (or lack thereof) on the way to the embarkation city, so late arrival was never an issue for me.  (Knock on wood.)  Quite the opposite: I had to look for ways to fill the day.  Most commonly, I just went outside and walked around.  It's one of the best ways to pass time: it's free, it takes minimal effort, you can see new sights in the process, and you get to learn the local human culture, not to mention find restaurants for your meals.  It worked well for me on all my cruises.  The only city where I imagine walking being problematic is Galveston, since Texas cities are very car-centric for the most part.

[caffeine_demon]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:05 PM, ryanwinkel said:

Booked my flight through carnival and my options was to arrive at 2pm when the cruise is set to sale at 3pm

 

So - that's half an hour to clear the airport, collect luggage and get to the cruise port - even if the plane landed right next to the boat that'd be too tight for me!

[ducklite]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:05 PM, ryanwinkel said:

Booked my flight through carnival and my options was to arrive at 2pm when the cruise is set to sale at 3pm or arrive at 1am the day of the cruise. I just don't know what I think about waiting in an airport until the port of miami opens. 

 

My question is Have you had to do this?  What do you do with no sleep the night before the cruise. Isn't your first night just completely ruined?

 

 

Ryan

 

If my flight landed at 1:00 am I"d have a hotel room booked and let them know I'd be arriving late.  I'd go and sleep, shower, have breakfast, and arrive at the port refreshed.  I can't imagine the logic of sleeping in an airport instead of getting a hotel room in this scenario--or pretty much any scenario. 

 

When we flew into Tahiti for our cruise we arrived at 6:00 am.  I had booked a room for the night prior and let them know we wouldn't arrive until around 7:00 am and it was amazing to walk up to the desk and get the keys to our room, go and crawl under the covers in an oh-so comfortable bed with the a/c cranking to reduce the humidity, and get some solid sleep.  We got up after a four hour nap, showered, and went to eat, passing through the over crowded lobby where almost everyone from our flight were hanging around, exhausted and cranky and still waiting for rooms.  It was the best $100 I've ever spent.

[ducklite]

Orlando is my home airport.  It is a very noisy, busy place 24 hours a day.  Overnight there are often construction works ongoing, cleaning people running vacuums and carpet cleaners, emptying trash cans, moving supplies around.  There are no places to stretch out and sleep.  The police aren't keen on people sleeping overnight at MCO unless it's obvious that there was a situation that cancelled a flight. 

 

On a positive note, unless something has changed, McDonald's in the food court (outside the secure concourse in the main terminal) is open 24 hours--because there are enough people working in the airport overnight to warrant staying open.  As I said, it's a busy place 24/7.

[davekathy]

1 hour ago, ducklite said:

If my flight landed at 1:00 am I"d have a hotel room booked and let them know I'd be arriving late.  I'd go and sleep, shower, have breakfast, and arrive at the port refreshed.  I can't imagine the logic of sleeping in an airport instead of getting a hotel room in this scenario--or pretty much any scenario. 

We would do exactly the same. 

[LynnTTT]

On 12/21/2019 at 1:02 PM, mayleeman said:

 

I am pretty sure that the idea that NYers act as if they are the center of things is not my "big assumption". Maybe you missed this cover known as "A New Yorker's View of the World"? And you are the one who called people warning about the harms of same day flights "nervous nellies" while pointing out you have never had those problems--flying from NY. Insulting people for being cautious is not a convincing argument when you don't face the travel disadvantages lots of other people do.

 

People have answered your question, by the way--because a flight arriving at 1 a.m. might well allow enough time for delays or rerouting.  

God I'm old.  I remember when that issue came out.  I think a friend had it as a poster 😉