Unintended Consequences of New Flight Rules, II
Following up on this recent CD post, this is from today's WSJ:
"Airlines are pushing back against new rules that give fliers more rights. They are threatening to cancel scores of flights in response to a new rule that would prohibit airlines from keeping passengers on the tarmac for more than three hours without giving travelers the opportunity to get off the plane. As of April 29, carriers that break the rule would face steep fines of up to $27,500 per passenger, or more than $4 million on a full Boeing 737 or Airbus A320.
Carriers say that to avoid those fines, they will aggressively cancel flights before and during storms—even if the bad weather never materializes. The threats could foreshadow significant changes in air travel, making it even less reliable for millions of road warriors and vacationers. By canceling flights, it could take days for all travelers to get home when storms strike."
17 Comments:
Fine...let em cancel..and watch revenue sink. I don't think those legacy airlines can afford that.
At what point does the playing out of consequences that were predicted before the rule went into place stop counting as "unintended"?
The government should not get any of this money. It should not be a fine, but compensation to the passengers.
How did we go from maybe a passenger's bill of rights to huge fines going straight to the government?
"Fine...let em cancel..and watch revenue sink. I don't think those legacy airlines can afford that"...
I take it you know very little about the airline industry, right?
It cost the airline many thousands of dollars per hour for a plane stuck at an airport due to weather or traffic problems...
These flights end up being a loss, a seriously big loss...
This bit of not well thought of nonsense will just end up putting more airline people on the street...
"The government should not get any of this money. It should not be a fine, but compensation to the passengers"...
Can't disagree with those sentiments one little bit but then again one has to ask, how much money is EACH taxpayer getting for their contribution to the Stimulus bill?
Quote from OA: "How did we go from maybe a passenger's bill of rights to huge fines going straight to the government?"
Good question. I guess that's the completely foreseable intended consequence of the government using its power to advance it's own self interest.
Another question would be, how does a company get away with essentially regularly kidnapping its customers for longer than three hours at a time. I'm sure this is probably due to the government requirements that planes leave on time. So rather than doing something logical, like when you know there's a three hour wait for takeoff and letting people wait in the airport or find some other mode of transportation, the airlines board ontime and hold everybody hostage.
Isn't government control a wonderful thing?
So the government just made flying more inconvenient and probably more expensive. Thanks guys!
I don't know much about the airline industry, but wouldn't canceling flights at the mention of inclement weather help them out?
My logic:
1. I assume that airplane are rarely filled to capacity.
2. The marginal cost to operation for adding another passenger is small relative to ticket price.
3. After cancellations, when you have piles of people waiting to get home, airlines can book flights to capacity, getting more people on fewer flights, and saving money.
Am I way off? If so, where?
Sounds like we need a "public option". Comrade Barrack and Comrade Nancy will get right on it, after they've finished with the auto industry, health care, student loans, etc. etc. Hope and Change!
The only problem here is that the airlines won't/don't notify passengers early enough for them to make decisions...like not wasting time and effort going to the airport.
Storms happen. People can deal with that.
What they can't deal with is being powerless while confined in an airplane, all due to the whims of some low IQ bureaucrat.
Why does CD keep trying to make this an issue?
Part of the implicit agreement between passengers and airlines is that the airlines will decide when you get on a plane, when you get OFF a plane, and when and where to move that plane.
Picture this -- after 1 hour on the tarmac -- 5 out of the 200 passengers want to get off. Another hour passes, and another 30 passengers want off. During the third hour, a stream of people periodically want to hop off.
Might make for a fun YouTube video, at least -- watching the chaos of buses circling the waiting planes, people racing on foot across the field, etc.
All govt supervised, of course.
<>
SURE they can afford it. Those that survive, that is.
Apparently your cavalier thinking is that what this industry needs is fewer flights, fewer destinations, much higher ticket prices, less reliable delivery of passengers -- along with massive govt takeovers and subsidies a la GM.
Problem solved!
Flights are at capacity now. Folks I know who travel as part of their job are more and more concerned about missed connections and canceled flight stranding them for DAYS unable to get home or to their next destination.
This rule will make flying a riskier proposition for business AND personal travelers. (Risk in the sense of getting stranded or not making it to your destination)
Anonymous said...
Sounds like we need a "public option". Comrade Barrack and Comrade Nancy will get right on it, ...
Coincidentally, he's going to spend billions on high speed rail lines. No better way to create a need than to take out the alternatives.
Why are "libertarians" so keen for people to turn over their freedom to corporations?
How is this any better than turning freedom over to the State?
Well, at least you can tell the corporation to get lost and take your business elsewhere, and the corporation loses real money. You can't do that with the government.
"1. I assume that airplane are rarely filled to capacity."...
Bad assumption anymore...
10 years ago you would've been right most of the time but not now...
Reason: Cost of fuel...
Sub reason: airport landing and take off fees and terminal fees have risen every year...
These two facets (and there are others) drive air carriers to continually look for ways to fill all seats on all flights...
"2. The marginal cost to operation for adding another passenger is small relative to ticket price"...
Define marginal...
Take just one facet in the cost of hauling one extra passenger, liability insurance...
The cost domestically isn't cheap, internationally it gets quite expensive...
Again at one time in the not to distant past your assumption would've been perfectly valid, totally on target...
"3. After cancellations, when you have piles of people waiting to get home, airlines can book flights to capacity, getting more people on fewer flights, and saving money."...
Again at one time that would've been quite an accurate assumption...
Since there are far fewer flights by ALL airlines today (as compared to 10 years ago for instance) out of all domestic airports, the room (empty seats) isn't there anymore...
Rising Breakeven Load Factors Threaten Airline Finances
As a longtime flyer to Boston, anything that holds up New York, results in planes circling in New York airspace, which quickly spreads to Newark and Philly (which is a hub for regional flights American). Once those flights start getting mucked up, things start degrading quickly.
Bad weather at a hub airport (e.g. Atlanta, Charlotte, Detroit, Minneapolis) and you'll see a world of hurt.
Post a Comment
<< Home