Continental to cancel delayed flights to avoid fines

wbarnhill

wbarnhill

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
7,901
Location
Greenwood, SC
Display Name
Display name:
iEXTERMINATE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_on_bi_ge/us_continental_airlines_cancellations

Under a Transportation Department rule taking effect next month, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if planes are delayed three hours and passengers can't get off.
Smisek said at an investor conference in New York that long delays are rare, and mostly caused by an outdated air traffic control system that the government has failed to upgrade.
Airline industry officials say they should decide whether to wait out delays, even if the delays go past three hours.
Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."
Click to expand...
Thoughts?
 
Build more runways, and have a contingency plan for crews and weather.
 
" Smisek said at an investor conference in New York that long delays are rare, and mostly caused by an outdated air traffic control system that the government has failed to upgrade."

Does the ATC system prohibit the airline from releasing passengers if the delay is more than 2 or 3 hours?
 
It's the first thing a lot of the guys flying for airlines said on some boards I'm on. A facilities manager talked about how there are times they can accommodate unscheduled planes arriving, but there are times they just can't. If a plane lands where they don't have facilities, it can be difficult to unload--who does it? At some point, local airport facilities would have to be available with local personnel. If they are all committed, how does XYZ airline get equipment and personnel there, especially when weather caused a crunch at that airport.

Typical case of someone that doesn't fully understand all the issues making mandates. So, if the airline now thinks there could be an issue, canceling the flight is the safest avenue. Good luck if you're trying to get somewhere when delays could be possible. Some airlines will have more alternatives than others. Good luck if you're not with the airline with the facilities at the airport you unexpectedly had to land at.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
I say it illustrates the idiocy of government more than anything else.
 
Steve Foley said:
Why is it so difficult to unload a plane that's been sitting for two hours?
Click to expand...

More to the point - why would it be easier to unload a cancelled flight compared to a delayed flight???

Or is it that you don't have to unload if the flight is cancelled? The airplane now becomes their overnight accommodation?
 
RJM62 said:
I say it illustrates the idiocy of government more than anything else.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wabower said:
Let's say you bought from Continental the rights to operate one flight a day, on which your gross profit would be ~$15,000. Let's say that the government passed a law saying if the flight were delayed more than 3 hours (by weather or ATC, neither of which you control) you could lose more than $2 mil. What would you do?
Click to expand...
The fine is for a three hour delay where the PASSENGERS COULD NOT GET OFF OF THE PLANE.

So what I would do is not let my customers sit in the plane for more than 3 hours and only push back when it was apparent that they would actually start the flight.
 
Below you will find the typical response of someone that has no idea of what is going on at the commercial level of aviation but somehow feels compelled to give an answer that is neither qualified nor informed.

In the long run this new rule will work more against the passenger.

ScottM said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Below you will find the typical dismissive attitude of those involved in commercial aviation that have no idea of how annoyed their customers are nor what little service is offered, but feel compelled to tell the people, that pay the bills, how they should just suck it up, bend over and take it up the keester when wanting to get from point a to b.

In the long run we can only hope that a lot more airlines go out of business.

I often find it a tough choice of who makes airline travel worse. Is it airline management or the TSA. One thing for sure, both groups are not going to win a genius award for best customer service anytime soon.

flav8r said:
Below you will find the typical response of someone that has no idea of what is going on at the commercial level of aviation but somehow feels compelled to give an answer that is neither qualified nor informed.

In the long run this new rule will work more against the passenger.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
flav8r said:
Below you will find the typical response of someone that has no idea of what is going on at the commercial level of aviation but somehow feels compelled to give an answer that is neither qualified nor informed.

In the long run this new rule will work more against the passenger.
Click to expand...

"They don't get it."

Sigh.

Again, I go back to my original statement from 4 years ago:

"I find it amazing that planes experiencing an emergency on the ramp always seem to have a way to get passengers off the plane, but planes that have been held on the ramp, with feces pouring out of the toilet and no water, and unsafe conditions suddenly have 'no way' to deplane their passengers."

Continental somehow has a way to deplane passengers on a canceled flight, right? So what is the difference between canceling and delaying extensively?

Oh yeah, "I don't get it."
 
ScottM said:
I often find it a tough choice of who make airline travel worse. Is it airline management or the TSA. One thing for sure, both groups are not going to win a genius award for best customer service anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I think you need to throw "dismissive airline pilots" in that group as well. The pilots that understand that they're causing major disruption to people's lives get it. Those that immediately respond with "The unwashed masses should shut up and enjoy the flight" are the real threat. Not TSA. Not Airline Management.
 
ScottM said:
The fine is for a three hour delay where the PASSENGERS COULD NOT GET OFF OF THE PLANE.

So what I would do is not let my customers sit in the plane for more than 3 hours and only push back when it was apparent that they would actually start the flight.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, of course, is that the airline would start getting fines for not pushing back on time.

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.
 
flav8r said:
And exactly how much do you think you'll be paying for your ticket then???

I shouldn't have fallen for your trolling tactic but that's my fault.:mad2:
Click to expand...
I would expect and have stated that I am willing to pay a fair price for service. But the current scheme of roulette ticket pricing sure seems to not be working very well for the airlines.

Explain to me this pricing scheme, if you can.

When I fly to Tokyo the biz class ticket costs $4500 but when I fly to Tokyo and then onwards for 7 more hours after changing planes my ticket is $3300.

When I fly to Florida my coach seat costs me $290, if I fly to San Diego my 1st class seat cost me $190.

What rocket scientist came up with this scheme?

Also tell me how making me sit on the ramp for more than three hours with the engines running will enable an airline to make a profit instead of deplaning the pax and letting them sit in the terminal?
 
Last edited:
Not to pick sides. But when I purchase airfare I'm purchasing transportation to my destination and I expect to be there in a reasonable amount of time. I don't expect to be held on the plane for 3-4 hours because the airline failed to plan accordingly.
 
MadseasoN said:
Not to pick sides. But when I purchase airfare I'm purchasing transportation to my destination and I expect to be there in a reasonable amount of time. I don't expect to be held on the plane for 3-4 hours because the airline failed to plan accordingly.
Click to expand...
But you are neither informed nor qualified to expect that sort of treatment from the airline. You are just supposed to sit there, shut up and take it. When the airline feels like delivering you to your destination they will do it. In the mean time you are not worthy to have an expectation of service!! :mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
ScottM said:
But you are neither informed nor qualified to expect that sort of treatment from the airline. You are just supposed to sit there, shut up and take it. When the airline feels like delivering you to your destination they will do it. In the mean time you are not worthy to have an expectation of service!! :mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

Well that does seem to be the attitude of some of these airlines.

My response to them: My $$$ says that I am fully qualified.
 
The big problem is the airlines are all working together, and against each other at the same time, and it's really just a bad combination for the customers.
 
MadseasoN said:
Well that does seem to be the attitude of some of these airlines.

My response to them: My $$$ says that I am fully qualified.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But as you can see in this thread that is not what the airlines feel at all. So I could care less what happens to them. I figure if enough of them go out of business maybe one will come along that actually knows what the heck they are doing and stops this cattle flight nonsense that they call customer service. I would not even care if they raised prices to do it. But because you have so many of these lousy airlines charging bargain basements rate no one can come in and charge fair rates and offer service. Better to knock some capacity out, get air travel to be nice once again and for cheap travel get the bus and train back into the markets so that we have real choices.
 
ScottM said:
I agree with you. But as you can see in this thread that is not what the airlines feel at all. So I could care less what happens to them. I figure if enough of them go out of business maybe one will come along that actually knows what the heck they are doing and stops this cattle flight nonsense that they call customer service. I would not even care if they raised prices to do it. But because you have so many of these lousy airlines charging bargain basements rate no one can come in and charge fair rates and offer service. Better to knock some capacity out, get air travel to be nice once again and for cheap travel get the bus and train back into the markets so that we have real choices.
Click to expand...


You mustve flown out of KEWR recently. :goofy:
 
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.

Beyond that most airlines have no real control over when they'll get released for take off to unregulated airports like LGA so they are at the mercy of ATC congestion and destination WX problems.

Returning to the gate or remaining at the gate at major airports is not a real feasible option given the dense use of every available gate.

Some airports do have auxilary gates space available due to the ever decreasing number of available airlines but that's few and far between.
 
The gov'ment has taken all incentive from the crews/carriers to give questionable situations a go. Next, there will be complaints of cancellations because the airline wouldn't risk the fine. So, do they fine them for not going and risking a huge fine.
Fine, fine <g>

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The gov'ment has taken all incentive from the crews/carriers to give questionable situations a go. Next, there will be complaints of cancellations because the airline wouldn't risk the fine. So, do they fine them for not going and risking a huge fine.
Fine, fine <g>

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
So you think the airlines are powerless against government regulation? And do keep in mind it is only a fine if they are on board for more than three hours. A three hour delay alone will not cause a fine to occur. This regulation is aimed at the planes that pull up and sit on the ramp for hours and hours with toilets over flowing, no food, etc.

Seriously! If the airlines came up with a believable policy I doubt any of this would have happened, but they have no credibility any longer when it comes to customer service.
 
SkyHog said:
"They don't get it."

Sigh.

Again, I go back to my original statement from 4 years ago:

"I find it amazing that planes experiencing an emergency on the ramp always seem to have a way to get passengers off the plane, but planes that have been held on the ramp, with feces pouring out of the toilet and no water, and unsafe conditions suddenly have 'no way' to deplane their passengers."

Continental somehow has a way to deplane passengers on a canceled flight, right? So what is the difference between canceling and delaying extensively?

Oh yeah, "I don't get it."
Click to expand...

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

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

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?
Click to expand...

The second paragraph seems logical to me. In this case I have a choice. I can cancel my trip and go home, fly another carrier, or wait it out (in the airport). If they have to cancel enough flights because they're not sure if I'll be stuck on the tarmac for 3-4 hours then they will get their act together.
 
I agree, there were a couple cases where it was really bad. I would have been pretty upset if on board; especially if the crew wasn't communicative. But, I understand the other side and you should also. The AA Austin situation was where they went in and hoped to find a break to get back to D/FW. No ground facilities there for them. They sat hoping to get a break but the storms kept them out. Most pacs would rather wait instead of being dropped off 200 miles away in storm conditions.

I think reasonable judgment should be used. Maybe a safe harbor of some kind, then, an evaluation of the situation. The crew couldn't hold a passenger vote. They couldn't get into the destination, they went to an alternate that didn't have ground facilities, but, at least they got on the ground.

I've had to divert for weather more than once. One time, I bored down through the storm clouds and went into a towered airport after the FBO was closed. We sat the storm out in the plane. We could have called around, but had little idea what was around; it was pouring rain and we thought we'd get out in a couple hours.

This isn't a non-profit enterprise. At some point, these folks have to make money or they simply won't be around. In the Austin investigation, there just weren't available facilities IIRC, maybe someone can bring that up. They were also told TSA couldn't handle the pacs. Later that was all swept under the rug, but that's what the crew was told at the time. A fine certainly may have been appropriate if another operator had facilities and wouldn't let AA use them.

It's all tradeoffs. There should be some reasonable time frame, I agree, but if they put the plane down somewhere that's a valid alternate in the vicinity of large systems that may not have been predictable and there aren't adequate facilities there, what are they supposed to do?

Best,

Dave
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
More to the point - why would it be easier to unload a cancelled flight compared to a delayed flight???

Or is it that you don't have to unload if the flight is cancelled? The airplane now becomes their overnight accommodation?
Click to expand...

Cancelled flight will never get loaded in the first place. That is the whole point of the preemptive cancellations.
 
But, a canceled flight at a major hub where things are all backed up may leave someone that is connecting at an airport with no rental cars or hotels left too.

Best,

Dave
 
ScottM said:
So you think the airlines are powerless against government regulation?
Click to expand...

If you look at deals airlines make on their jet fuel taxes per gallon compared to what regular schmoes pay, I'd say the answer is no...


Trapper John
 
We don't need the gov trying to run the airlines, they cant run anything! The passangers are the ones that need to take controll of this, remember with out them there isn't an airline.

But it wont happen that way, sheeple will cry and big bro will come and try to save the day, but in the end will cause much more problems.

Maybe if they keep screwing the pass, then there will be more 135, that would be a much better system IMO.
 
Leavitt said:
We don't need the gov trying to run the airlines, they cant run anything!
Click to expand...
ATC?

Leavitt said:
The passangers are the ones that need to take controll of this, remember with out them there isn't an airline.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the airlines are not listening to the customers. As you can see in this thread we passengers are just supposed to sit down and shut up as we are too stupid to understand the reasons for the superior intellect of some airline employees.

Leavitt said:
But it wont happen that way, sheeple will cry and big bro will come and try to save the day, but in the end will cause much more problems.
Click to expand...
Like airline deregulation?

Leavitt said:
Maybe if they keep screwing the pass, then there will be more 135, that would be a much better system IMO.
Click to expand...
One could hope, I also hope for more transport alternatives such as high speed rail where it makes sense.
 
Trapper John said:
If you look at deals airlines make on their jet fuel taxes per gallon compared to what regular schmoes pay, I'd say the answer is no...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

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.
 
SkyHog said:
Continental somehow has a way to deplane passengers on a canceled flight, right? So what is the difference between canceling and delaying extensively?
Click to expand...
The passengers would not have even gotten on a canceled flight.
 
In the early 1970's I paid $300 to fly from DTW to LGA (1970's $).

Was the service better, yeah sort of. Did the airline employees treat me better, not really.

Would I recommend going back, no thank you.

My claim to fame is that I have about 3 years without a frequent flier mile. My real disappointment is that people like Scott who accumulate miles like an airline employee are not treated significantly better.

To the original question, I would give a valuable body part not to be kept on an airliner with the toilets overflowing and drinking water unavailable for hours. If you have to cancel the flight, not a problem. I'd rather walk through a foot of snow to the next county to get a hotel room.

Joe
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top