Continental to cancel delayed flights to avoid fines

[gismo]

IIRC, in this state (Washington) they don't pay ANY taxes on the fuel they buy here. But you sure pay taxes on the 100LL you pump into your bugsmasher. In fact, IIRC, all commercial ops are exempt from paying taxes on their aviation fuel.

Part 121 ops don't pay fuel taxes they pay a head tax instead (actually the customers pay it but in the end that's the same thing. I'm pretty certain that charter and other non-airline commercial operators pay the same fuel taxes that the rest of us do.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm pretty certain that charter and other non-airline commercial operators pay the same fuel taxes that the rest of us do.

That would be a yes.

 

[gismo]

So you want to have planes empied via the slides? With Fire and rescue crews standing by?

How about just having a half dozen portable boarding ramps sitting around at a bunch of airports around the country. Given the choice between sitting on a hot smelly plane with no food or water and overflowing toilets (just think how much more overflow there'd be if water was available) vs walking down some stairs and across the tarmac I know what I'd choose.

As for the canceled flights how are you going to feel when you get to the airport for your flight and at the gate get told the flight was canceled becuase they could not say for sure if they would have delayes at either end?

While I wouldn't be happy to have my flight cancelled for any reason, there are definitely times when I'd rather be stuck in the terminal than in an airplane on the ramp.

 

[SkyHog]

The passengers would not have even gotten on a canceled flight.

But I thought the delays were unforeseeable. How can they cancel a flight for something they can't plan for?

 

[Areeda]

But I thought the delays were unforeseeable. How can they cancel a flight for something they can't plan for?

he he

 

[Everskyward]

But I thought the delays were unforeseeable. How can they cancel a flight for something they can't plan for?

I think that's the point, they will cancel a flight now rather than facing the possibility of big fines if it happens to sit on the taxiway for more than 3 hours.

 

[Areeda]

I think that's the point, they will cancel a flight now rather than facing the possibility of big fines if it happens to sit on the taxiway for more than 3 hours.

I'm missing something. Why not delay boarding until we are pretty sure of takeoff in less than 3 hrs?

Is gate space that much more precious than passengers?

I don't believe the "on time" record effect between the two is a big difference.

Joe

 

[Everskyward]

I'm missing something. Why not delay boarding until we are pretty sure of takeoff in less than 3 hrs?

You would think that would be the case but there are some logistical problems. What happens when the next airplane which needs to use the gate comes in?

Is gate space that much more precious than passengers?

I don't know about more precious but gate space is probably scarcer, at least at some airports. Canceling flights could have unintended consequences too. What happens then to the flight that airplane was supposed to make from the destination airport? I think when things get screwed up it's like a house of cards.

 

[rpadula]

How about just having a half dozen portable boarding ramps sitting around at a bunch of airports around the country. Given the choice between sitting on a hot smelly plane with no food or water and overflowing toilets (just think how much more overflow there'd be if water was available) vs walking down some stairs and across the tarmac I know what I'd choose.

Give every passenger on the plane one of these!

Problem solved.

 

[SkyHog]

I think that's the point, they will cancel a flight now rather than facing the possibility of big fines if it happens to sit on the taxiway for more than 3 hours.

That's the question, though, Mari. In order to cancel a flight, they'd have to be sitting on the taxiway for more than 3 hours, which means its already boarded....which then means they have the ability to deplane.

So there's a disconnect somewhere. Either they know about the delay, and board anyway, or they don't know about the delay, and they have the ability to deplane.

Airlines can't have it both ways.

 

[wsuffa]

Is that the new slogan of big tube airlines!

You mean like Ron Allen (then CEO of Delta), when face with customer & employee complaints, uttered the words "So Be It".

 

[wabower]

You're overlooking the obvious.

Airlines only earn revenue if people fly. They don't make a dime if they sit on the ramp or cancel the flight. So the inherent assumption is that they want to go. When they cancel the schedule due to a storm system sweeping through the area, they just kissed a day's worth of revenue goodbye, while incurring all of the operating costs except the trip DOC's.

FWIW, check SWA's record during the past few years' bitching and moaning. You'll see that they don't have nearly as many problems as the other carriers. The reason is that they have been preemptively cancelling flights (and entire schedules from affected cities) for many years, and long before the new law was passed. Their theory has been that if they didn't make any money at it and the best they could hope for was a bunch of ****ed-off passengers, why not send everybody home and live to fly another day. One of their chief pilots is a friend, and he thinks it's funny to sit on the sidelines and watch the peeing match.

That's the question, though, Mari. In order to cancel a flight, they'd have to be sitting on the taxiway for more than 3 hours, which means its already boarded....which then means they have the ability to deplane.

So there's a disconnect somewhere. Either they know about the delay, and board anyway, or they don't know about the delay, and they have the ability to deplane.

Airlines can't have it both ways.

 

[RJM62]

I think it illustrates the idiocy of the airlines. Had they been treating customers right to begin with no one would have to step in. It has been a while but I recall several times arriving at ORD and being told no gate available. What they really meant was no gate at their terminal available. So we sat while starring at empty gates at the adjacent terminal. The airline, if it really cared about their customers would have deplaned us at the empty gate through some sort of sharing agreement, made us more happy than a two wait in the ramp. OR! maybe push back one of their planes at their gate, let us deplane, push that plane back out of the way, etc.

The underlying cause of all of this is a lack of imagination and a carefree customer service attitude of airline management.

The thing is, Scott, that no one like excessive regulation, but in a case where airports and ATC simply can't handle all the flights that the airlines want to schedule during peak hours, there's no real alternative. Some system needs to be devised by which slots are created and equitably distributed among the various carriers to avoid the bottlenecks. It's a gargantuan task, granted, but what other options are there?

The government's "solution," however, has been basically the same approach government takes to most problems: Pass a law against the problem, take some money from the private sector, and declare it solved. That's the part that's idiotic. They did nothing to try to better manage the flow. They just pretended to address the issue by outlawing it. They might as well outlaw snowstorms while they're at it.

The fact is that airlines are not any more fond of having their planes sitting on the tarmac for hours burning fuel than the passengers are to be in those airplanes. And yes, to an extent it's the airlines' own fault for scheduling too many flights at the same time, to the point that "the system" can't handle them all. But neither does any airline want to be the first to start losing business by rescheduling their most popular flights to less-popular times.

That's why it's incumbent upon "the system" to say, "No, we can't accommodate all that traffic at the same time," and force carriers to spread the traffic out more realistically. But that's not what Congress did. They just passed a law against the problem, declared it solved, and stuck their heads back in the sand (or possibly other places).

-Rich

 

[PilotAlan]

You're overlooking the obvious.
Airlines only earn revenue if people fly. They don't make a dime if they sit on the ramp or cancel the flight. So the inherent assumption is that they want to go.

Not necessarily.
The didn't want to delay flights with the pax in the terminal, because the businessmen with the high-dollar, refundable, last minute, full fare tickets will walk over to the competition and buy a full fare ticket on another carrier.

By getting everyone on the plane and closing the door, they prevent that from happening and roll the dice that the flight will go and they keep the revenue from the big $$ tickets.
This rule changes the P/L calculus, and moves customer needs to top of the heap.

 

[wabower]

So how much of the high-end fare did they get to keep if the trip was cancelled?

Not necessarily.
The didn't want to delay flights with the pax in the terminal, because the businessmen with the high-dollar, refundable, last minute, full fare tickets will walk over to the competition and buy a full fare ticket on another carrier.

By getting everyone on the plane and closing the door, they prevent that from happening and roll the dice that the flight will go and they keep the revenue from the big $$ tickets.
This rule changes the P/L calculus, and moves customer needs to top of the heap.

 

[Everskyward]

That's why it's incumbent upon "the system" needs to say, "No, we can't accommodate all that traffic at the same time," and force carriers to spread the traffic out more realistically.

But, the thing is that airports can successfully handle a certain volume of traffic under normal circumstances. It's only when bad weather or something else intervenes that things get bottled up. If traffic is restricted based on a worst case scenario then there would be excess capacity that could be used during normal times which wouldn't be used. Then there's the problem of too many airplanes diverting to an airport which doesn't have a sufficient number of gates. I don't see how scheduling would alleviate that situation.

 

[RJM62]

But, the thing is that airports can successfully handle a certain volume of traffic under normal circumstances. It's only when bad weather or something else intervenes that things get bottled up. If traffic is restricted based on a worst case scenario then there would be excess capacity that could be used during normal times which wouldn't be used. Then there's the problem of too many airplanes diverting to an airport which doesn't have a sufficient number of gates. I don't see how scheduling would alleviate that situation.

You can't control the uncontrollable, so you do the best you can under normal conditions. I live in NYC, which of course affects my opinion. Traffic here during peak hours can be bottlenecked when the skies are CAVU from coast to coast, and most of the reason is scheduling.

-Rich

 

[Speed]

Oh, and the airline pilots get paid block to block, so its in their best interests to sit on the ramp gridlocked as well. The only group that actually suffers is the passengers. Pilots make more money, airlines avoid fines, the airport claims a high "on time" rate, and the FAA gets more ammo for user fees.

But the passengers? **** 'em.

Can you pass that on to Horizon? They certainly don't pay that way. Pay is based on 'scheduled' or 'actual', whichever is less. And I highly doubt they are the only ones that don't pay block to block.

 

[wabower]

I've said before, maybe here, that I'm one of the smart sumbitches who was flying the Gulfstreams, not one of the idiots at the airlines. When the big cold front sags down around the northeast and isolates it from the rest of the country, the flights at the big three NYC airports are stuck in line until the WX improves. We all know its the airlines fault and they should have all the answers, as many here seem to think they do.

Fact is, all of us rocket-scientists in the big fancy corporate iron were sitting in line on another taxiway across town, in exactly the same situation as the carriers. We couldn't move either, couldn't deplane, couldn't do squat except sit there and wait for the logjam to break.

Whose fault is that? Mine?

The thing is, Scott, that no one like excessive regulation, but in a case where airports and ATC simply can't handle all the flights that the airlines want to schedule during peak hours, there's no real alternative. Some system needs to be devised by which slots are created and equitably distributed among the various carriers to avoid the bottlenecks. It's a gargantuan task, granted, but what other options are there?

The government's "solution," however, has been basically the same approach government takes to most problems: Pass a law against the problem, take some money from the private sector, and declare it solved. That's the part that's idiotic. They did nothing to try to better manage the flow. They just pretended to address the issue by outlawing it. They might as well outlaw snowstorms while they're at it.

The fact is that airlines are not any more fond of having their planes sitting on the tarmac for hours burning fuel than the passengers are to be in those airplanes. And yes, to an extent it's the airlines' own fault for scheduling too many flights at the same time, to the point that "the system" can't handle them all. But neither does any airline want to be the first to start losing business by rescheduling their most popular flights to less-popular times.

That's why it's incumbent upon "the system" to say, "No, we can't accommodate all that traffic at the same time," and force carriers to spread the traffic out more realistically. But that's not what Congress did. They just passed a law against the problem, declared it solved, and stuck their heads back in the sand (or possibly other places).

-Rich

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Let's see; if D/FW Approach was correct when they conducted operation Raincheck; almost all flight are now sequenced by a centralized computer system and held on the ground instead of having them hold in the air when there are known delays.

And, sometimes pilots in the air correctly decide not to fly through severe, unexpected weather and divert.

And, local governments have failed to expand airport facilities.

And, there is a lot of constrained airspace which is also attributable mostly to local government actions.

But, it's all the airline's fault (I'm not saying they don't also do some dumb things, but it's not all them.)

The problem we have is in this era of instant communications is everyone contacts their congress critter. Congress critters get elected/reelected by responding to constituants even if those folks don't understand the problem. Congress critters take ACTION whether correct or not. Constituants feel something was done--businesses die or are severely constrained for no good reason.

For pete's sake, do a study. Have someone that really understands the issues explain and make recommendations--oh! That would take to long and be too logical. Might actually point out where there problems are and we can't have that (might look bad for local government and congress critters).

Point is, there are a lot if issues over which the airlines do not have control. Let's put the blame where it belongs. If the airlines really screw up, fine, fine them. Fine. But don't just fine them over some arbitrary time limit over which they may not have control.

If one is in the takeoff queue and isn't ready to go when called, they move to the penalty box. What if they have to de-ice again? etc. etc.

Best,

Dave

 

[wsuffa]

Dave:

Two words: Populist Government.

I'll leave it at that to avoid Spinning this thread into oblivion.

Bill

 

[RJM62]

I've said before, maybe here, that I'm one of the smart sumbitches who was flying the Gulfstreams, not one of the idiots at the airlines. When the big cold front sags down around the northeast and isolates it from the rest of the country, the flights at the big three NYC airports are stuck in line until the WX improves. We all know its the airlines fault and they should have all the answers, as many here seem to think they do.

Fact is, all of us rocket-scientists in the big fancy corporate iron were sitting in line on another taxiway across town, in exactly the same situation as the carriers. We couldn't move either, couldn't deplane, couldn't do squat except sit there and wait for the logjam to break.

Whose fault is that? Mine?

No. Who said it was?

It's a tough situation, and frankly I can't blame the airlines for scheduling flights when people want to fly. If one airline doesn't, another will. That's supply and demand.

But as Dave said, at some point the system can't handle it; and then the system has to take a stand and say, "Look, this is what we can handle. We're going to make it as fair as possible, but you're not going to get everything you want."

And to do that requires research and hard work. Because of the nature of air travel, no one airport or authority can solve the problem. But each one of them can make it worse. That's why the leadership has to come from the top.

-Rich

 

[wabower]

Top of what?

No. Who said it was?

It's a tough situation, and frankly I can't blame the airlines for scheduling flights when people want to fly. If one airline doesn't, another will. That's supply and demand.

But as Dave said, at some point the system can't handle it; and then the system has to take a stand and say, "Look, this is what we can handle. We're going to make it as fair as possible, but you're not going to get everything you want."

And to do that requires research and hard work. Because of the nature of air travel, no one airport or authority can solve the problem. But each one of them can make it worse. That's why the leadership has to come from the top.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

Top of what?

In the U.S., the FAA, in cooperation with other governments. Do the research, decide where improvements have to be made, make those improvements, and then manage the traffic -- even if it mean's Joe's Airways can't schedule three flights to leave the same runway at the same time.

-Rich

 

[wabower]

Our FAA? Manage a project that complex? You're kidding, right?

quote=RJM62;565397]In the U.S., the FAA, in cooperation with other governments. Do the research, decide where improvements have to be made, make those improvements, and then manage the traffic -- even if it mean's Joe's Airways can't schedule three flights to leave the same runway at the same time.

-Rich[/quote]

 

[RJM62]

Hey, I didn't say they would do it, Wayne. Just that that would be a way to approach a solution, rather than just dishing out punishments and doing nothing about the underlying problems, which do include poor scheduling along with all the others mentioned (capacity problems, outmoded equipment, etc.).

-Rich

 

[wabower]

You're right, Rich, and the agency needs a shot in the arm to regain their position in the beltway pecking order. Based on their performance to date, however, I'm not optimistic that the mental giants there are up to the task. Too bad for us.

Hey, I didn't say they would do it, Wayne. Just that that would be a way to approach a solution, rather than just dishing out punishments and doing nothing about the underlying problems, which do include poor scheduling along with all the others mentioned (capacity problems, outmoded equipment, etc.).

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

You're right, Rich, and the agency needs a shot in the arm to regain their position in the beltway pecking order. Based on their performance to date, however, I'm not optimistic that the mental giants there are up to the task. Too bad for us.

That's why my first post in this topic referred to the idiocy of government.

-Rich

 

[ScottM]

For pete's sake, do a study.

You mean with tax dollars!!?? Perish the thought!

The issue is not weather nor capacity. When these flight happen where pax are trapped liked cattle the issue has been logistics. Usually a failure of gate resources, wrong information, stupid policies, etc. All of this could have been avoided had one single airline employee thought a little out side of the box and decided what was important was no longer keeping the flight active, but making the best of a bad situation.

If you have a plane sitting and the pilot asking and re-asking for assistance with bad toilets, crying babies, no food for hours, etc. It is time to exercise common sense and deplane the passengers. That has nothign to do with government nor regulation but everything to do with the poor attitude that airlines hold for their customers.

 

[ScottM]

In the U.S., the FAA, in cooperation with other governments. Do the research, decide where improvements have to be made, make those improvements, and then manage the traffic -- even if it mean's Joe's Airways can't schedule three flights to leave the same runway at the same time.

-Rich

These two statement seem to contradict each other. One one hand you indicate that government is the solution.

That's why my first post in this topic referred to the idiocy of government.

-Rich

But here you say that they are idiots and refer to a post where you blame them for what has happened.

Which is the right answer?

I have also heard people on this thread state that some form of regulation is important and may help. You yourself even pointed to the overload of traffic in New York airport and how the airlines are not smart enough to figure it out. BTW in Chicago the FAA did step in a cap departures during certain peak times. That small local regulation solved a lot of our back ups.

 

[TMetzinger]

We managed to land ALL the planes in the air on 9/11, and folks weren't stranded in them for hours and hours, as far as I know.

All passengers want is to be able to wait out long delays in terminals, not in the alumitube.

 

[flyersfan31]

I don't know what the real answer is but I pretty sure that re-regulation would go a
long way to fixing quite a few problems that were brought on by deregulation.
That way the airlines could once again go back to concentrating on customer service.

There are plenty of unregulated businesses that seem to do just fine providing customer service. It seems, well, ludicrous to me that the answer to bad customer service is more government regulation. How about better business management?

 

[SkyHog]

There are plenty of unregulated businesses that seem to do just fine providing customer service. It seems, well, ludicrous to me that the answer to bad customer service is more government regulation. How about better business management?

That would work.

Except the airlines didn't do it.

Then the pilots blamed us.

Then the flight attendants blamed us.

Then the management blamed us.

So now the blame is in the right place. And since the airlines refused to act before, now they have to.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We seem to be taking this debate a couple different directions.

Has anyone posted the actual policy so we can see what it actually says? I've seen news articles outlining parts of it but not read the actual policy.

There also seem to be different instances: long wait times on the ground before departure and deviations in the air to a facility without proper, uh, facilities <g>.

Scott: you seem to be focusing more on a long delay from a place with facilities where cancellation could come after 3 hours of trying to get out. I keep citing the Austin incident where it was a diversion due to weather--that got a lot of press here. And, I would have been pretty angry if I was a pac stuck on that plane that wasn't allowed to leave the plane for about nine hours IIRC.

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

Thinking about this some more - I know that there are airports (EWR and LGA come immediately to mind) that are so "oversubscribed" that it's possible for a plane to not have ANY available gates to park at. But you could still address that with mobile stairs and a bus. Yes, it may take a while to unload a plane that way, but it's doable.

At the other airports, the issue is that the "company" gates are full. What's needed here are agreements (facilitated or imposed by the airport) that would allow empty gates to be utilized by any aircraft to avoid "strandings".

 

[maddog52]

That would work.

Except the airlines didn't do it.

Then the pilots blamed us......

.

What are you talking about?

 

[wbarnhill]

A few things I noticed on my recent trip to Europe. Both times I came into ATL, we had to wait for a gate, but the longest wait was about 15 minutes. Landing in Oslo in the snow, they couldn't get the gate moved to our aircraft, so they ended up bringing stairs to the aft door and we deplaned, walked over to a staircase attached to the terminal, and went inside.

Of course these are all incidents happening at the end of flight. I'm really curious to know if you can cancel a flight after it has landed, or if there are a lot more instances of sitting on the ramp waiting to take off for hours than I realize.

 

[RJM62]

These two statement seem to contradict each other. One one hand you indicate that government is the solution.

But here you say that they are idiots and refer to a post where you blame them for what has happened.

Which is the right answer?

I have also heard people on this thread state that some form of regulation is important and may help. You yourself even pointed to the overload of traffic in New York airport and how the airlines are not smart enough to figure it out. BTW in Chicago the FAA did step in a cap departures during certain peak times. That small local regulation solved a lot of our back ups.

I know it seems contradictory. But the reality is that if X-number of passengers want to fly from the same place at the same time, airlines are going to schedule those flights -- whether the system can handle the load or not -- until they're told, "No, you can't do that."

To blame the airlines isn't completely fair because of two reasons. The first is that if an airline does the logical thing traffic-capacity wise and moves some of their flights to less-busy (and less-popular) times, their pax will simply select another airline that flies when the passengers want to fly -- regardless of whether that flight's departing on time is realistic or not.

The second reason is that even if the airlines themselves got together and said, "Hey, this situation sucks. Let's reschedule our flights to spread things out and make it better," they'd probably be prosecuted for collusion, restraint of trade, antitrust, or whatever. (Not that I think they'd do it, anyway, mind you.)

So in essence you have a situation where competitive pressure pushes the airlines to schedule flights unrealistically in order to meet market demand, and a system that is seriously in need of upgrading in many areas (runways, terminals, ATC, etc.).

A smart government would hire experts to look at the whole system, from the bottom up, and make changes. Some of these would be capital improvements to the system itself, while others would involve the creation and equitable distribution of departure and arrival slots that stay within such limits as the system can efficiently handle on an average day. There's not much they can do about adverse weather, in-flight emergencies, and so forth; but they can try to make an average day move along more smoothly.

Instead, Congress appealed to the populist outcry that something be done. Rather than looking at and trying to fix the problems, they just did what they usually do: They passed a law against the problem and declared it solved. No infrastructure changes, no capital improvements, not even an attempt to try to untangle the scheduling. None of that. They just said, in effect, "Long departure delays are illegal now, and you will be fined. Problem solved."

Of course, in doing so they created a situation in which airlines will lose less money by simply canceling flights, which doesn't do anyone any good except in the sense that it helps thin out traffic during peak hours -- which is one of the things that I'm suggesting the government should be trying to do in the first place. The difference is that thinning traffic by means of an equitable distribution of a realistic number of slots wouldn't strand pax in terminals looking for other flights.

-Rich

 

[maddog52]

Wow Rich. Very well said. +1

One thing I might add. Requireing some of those slots to have a minimum seat capacity would also help. One 737 NG or 757 will get 3-4 times as many passengers through the system as a single RJ and use the same airspace.

 

[ScottM]

I know it seems contradictory. But the reality is that if X-number of passengers want to fly from the same place at the same time, airlines are going to schedule those flights -- whether the system can handle the load or not -- until they're told, "No, you can't do that."

To blame the airlines isn't completely fair because of two reasons. The first is that if an airline does the logical thing traffic-capacity wise and moves some of their flights to less-busy (and less-popular) times, their pax will simply select another airline that flies when the passengers want to fly -- regardless of whether that flight's departing on time is realistic or not.

Fair enough!

The second reason is that even if the airlines themselves got together and said, "Hey, this situation sucks. Let's reschedule our flights to spread things out and make it better," they'd probably be prosecuted for collusion, restraint of trade, antitrust, or whatever. (Not that I think they'd do it, anyway, mind you.)

So in essence you have a situation where competitive pressure pushes the airlines to schedule flights unrealistically in order to meet market demand, and a system that is seriously in need of upgrading in many areas (runways, terminals, ATC, etc.).

I agree and think this is a consequence of the deregulation. Like I said a little regulation in this area helped a lot for ORD. That was locally applied and happened only after the airlines failed to deliver on their efforts to straighten things out. Sometimes you have to go that route to accomplish a solution.

A smart government would hire experts to look at the whole system, from the bottom up, and make changes. Some of these would be capital improvements to the system itself, while others would involve the creation and equitable distribution of departure and arrival slots that stay within such limits as the system can efficiently handle on an average day. There's not much they can do about adverse weather, in-flight emergencies, and so forth; but they can try to make an average day move along more smoothly.

The problem I see is that there are no experts who are not agenda driven. They either came from airlines and are stuck in that mode of thinking or came from the FAA side of the house and are stuck with that way of thinking. Getting everyone in a room to work things out just is not happening. Too many egos and agendas.

Instead, Congress appealed to the populist outcry that something be done. Rather than looking at and trying to fix the problems, they just did what they usually do: They passed a law against the problem and declared it solved. No infrastructure changes, no capital improvements, not even an attempt to try to untangle the scheduling. None of that. They just said, in effect, "Long departure delays are illegal now, and you will be fined. Problem solved."

Of course that was going to happen. With the airlines and the FAA being in a adversarial mode and people getting more and more annoyed without anyone listening to them they are going to turn to people who control purse strings and make thing uncomfortable for the airlines. The airline saw this coming too and did nothing about it. Had they put a few of their differences to the side and developed some plans and policies themselves I'll bet Congress would have slapped them around a little and let them do what needed to be done. But the airlines continued to be arrogant and this is what they got. They have only themselves to blame. Had they served the public, worked together, or let their employees use common sense these trapped on board events would not be the news events that they are and I doubt anyone would have forced such a law onto them.

Of course, in doing so they created a situation in which airlines will lose less money by simply canceling flights, which doesn't do anyone any good except in the sense that it helps thin out traffic during peak hours -- which is one of the things that I'm suggesting the government should be trying to do in the first place. The difference is that thinning traffic by means of an equitable distribution of a realistic number of slots wouldn't strand pax in terminals looking for other flights.

-Rich

Well sitting on a ramp buring fuel for hours and hours is not good business sense either. A smart airline will learn how to work around this issue, giving good customer services and making money. This may weed out a few more of the weak airlines and that will be good for the public.