Covid-19: Why Are The Airlines Flying Such Empty Flights?

[Sinistar]

First things first - this isn't to knock them. I think its awesome they are flying planes that are almost empty. The passengers that paid are on the flight they paid for and the time they picked The crews are getting paid which as awesome.

But you would think they would cancel a few and merge them. A friend from work did the Minnie to Seatac flight a little over a week ago. Boeing 757, several hours and only 14 total passengers. His flight back a week later was 16 passengers. He's self quarantined the **** out of himself after passing through Seatac

Anyway - why aren't the airlines canceling some runs and forcing passengers to take the next later flight where they can load up more seats, etc? With only 14 people on a 757 you could merge 3 or 4 flights and still have lots and lots of empty seats. With all of their losses you would think forcing flights to merge would really cut those loses. It would seem accounting is taking a backseat to dealing with this crappy Covid-19. Or maybe they are just relying on a bailout to make up for those loses. From a loses POV it doesn't seem like an airline thing to do?

 

[dans2992]

Was thinking the same.

 

[jordane93]

We are canceling flights. There’s still only like 10 people on the flights anyway. They probably don’t want to cancel all of them. Take LGA-ATL. There’s normally like 12 flights a day. Now there’s only 5 or 6. They aren’t going to shutdown every single flight.

 

[Ghery]

UA has cancelled a bunch. We were originally scheduled to ride SEA-DEN-PVR on May 2. With their cancellations and schedule changes we now ride UA SEA-DEN on May 1, spend the night at a hotel at DEN and then DEN-SFO-PVR on May 2.

I have a cousin who flies for AA. He messaged me a couple days ago on LinkedIn saying that he had one flight where there were 2 paying passengers on board. A few non-revs plus the flight crew. The airlines are hurting, big time.

 

[brien23]

It's not only each airline flying empty it's all of them, they could talk to each other and combine their flights to make it more efficient. Several airlines flying from SEA to JFK and other big city's as to who gets to fly that's another question. Some of the planes are scheduled to fly to another location after the first flight and those will take some time to figure out.

 

[asicer]

I have a cousin who flies for AA. He messaged me a couple days ago on LinkedIn saying that he had one flight where there were 2 paying passengers on board. A few non-revs plus the flight crew.

That sort of takes the fun out of the "spot the air marshal" game, doesn't it?

 

[4CornerFlyer]

The airlines do carry cargo too, and the mail. If anything the need for this has increased, so still need some flights, even if the seats are empty.
Jon

 

[3393RP]

I think one reason is positioning airplanes so they can keep flying what scheduled flights are still operating.

 

[tspear]

@Sinistar

Note: I am a news junkie. I am not actually in the airliner business.
So with that stated. I have seen multiple articles which state it as a combination of sunk costs (contractual requirements) and keeping the pubic engaged.
Mostly due to contracts, the airlines cannot spin on a dime. You will notice, that most cuts are announced a month or at least a few weeks in advance.

So, I would expect, the airlines to cut more again next month.

Tim

 

[Sinistar]

Thanks for all the answers so far. I figured there is way, way more to all this with so many moving parts, etc.

 

[Tantalum]

I've read the cargo thing too.. the belly of the planes are still full.. Wired had a good write up

https://www.wired.com/story/airlines-use-empty-passenger-jets-ease-cargo-crunch/

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Why? To keep all of us expendable (err essential) flight crews moving to and from work.

 

[Eldorado]

Also, my city, county subsidize United for any flights under 50% capacity, thereby assuring United will not lose money. Not sure the exact amount. The parking lot is empty but flights are still coming and going. Waiting to see how long this continues. Their are 3 flights daily to Houston and Denver.

 

[LongRoadBob]

I read a while back here in Europe about empty flights from the US still flying here. The article meant really empty of passengers. They said it was because of EU rules regarding routes. That it was “use them or lose them” which in this emergency seems very dumb. They also said they didn’t even try to get some passengers because they wanted the planes as light as possible for keeping fuel consumption as low as possible.

I don’t take news as gospel, but that was the story. Meanwhile I get an email (even though I’m living here I still get them from the embassy from time to time) from the US embassy that is mostly geared to Americans visiting Norway. Was interesting, many stranded Americans, flights cancelled (apparently while some still flying just not taking passengers), and hadn’t thought of this, but since the state dept, immigration is closed down, people visiting here may not be able to get flights home, wouldn’t be able either to extend legally their stay since the dept is not open, and they may have to overstay their visas. They mentioned Norway has said they won’t get into trouble for this, as extenuating circumstances. But it got me wondering if all nations, like Thailand, etc were also overlooking temporarily the visa overstays of if it might put Americans in jeopardy of being arrested.
State dept is currently not planning evacuation of US travelers, and advises to just keep trying to get a flight home, and document your attempts.

 

[tspear]

I read a while back here in Europe about empty flights from the US still flying here. The article meant really empty of passengers. They said it was because of EU rules regarding routes. That it was “use them or lose them” which in this emergency seems very dumb. They also said they didn’t even try to get some passengers because they wanted the planes as light as possible for keeping fuel consumption as low as possible.

I don’t take news as gospel, but that was the story. Meanwhile I get an email (even though I’m living here I still get them from the embassy from time to time) from the US embassy that is mostly geared to Americans visiting Norway. Was interesting, many stranded Americans, flights cancelled (apparently while some still flying just not taking passengers), and hadn’t thought of this, but since the state dept, immigration is closed down, people visiting here may not be able to get flights home, wouldn’t be able either to extend legally their stay since the dept is not open, and they may have to overstay their visas. They mentioned Norway has said they won’t get into trouble for this, as extenuating circumstances. But it got me wondering if all nations, like Thailand, etc were also overlooking temporarily the visa overstays of if it might put Americans in jeopardy of being arrested.
State dept is currently not planning evacuation of US travelers, and advises to just keep trying to get a flight home, and document your attempts.

There was an article about this on one of the major news orga.
The FAA, and FTC waived the use or lose requirements and said any federal airport that did not follow expect to lose all funding.


Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[Busflyer]

I read a while back here in Europe about empty flights from the US still flying here. The article meant really empty of passengers. They said it was because of EU rules regarding routes. That it was “use them or lose them” which in this emergency seems very dumb. They also said they didn’t even try to get some passengers because they wanted the planes as light as possible for keeping fuel consumption as low as possible.

I don’t take news as gospel, but that was the story. Meanwhile I get an email (even though I’m living here I still get them from the embassy from time to time) from the US embassy that is mostly geared to Americans visiting Norway. Was interesting, many stranded Americans, flights cancelled (apparently while some still flying just not taking passengers), and hadn’t thought of this, but since the state dept, immigration is closed down, people visiting here may not be able to get flights home, wouldn’t be able either to extend legally their stay since the dept is not open, and they may have to overstay their visas. They mentioned Norway has said they won’t get into trouble for this, as extenuating circumstances. But it got me wondering if all nations, like Thailand, etc were also overlooking temporarily the visa overstays of if it might put Americans in jeopardy of being arrested.
State dept is currently not planning evacuation of US travelers, and advises to just keep trying to get a flight home, and document your attempts.

The saving fuel by not taking passengers sounds like bad info by the reporters. As a rule of thumb we burn about 10% extra for carrying extra weight so 1000lb worth of passengers will cost you an extra 100lb fuel burn. I’m sure they’d rather have the revenue from those 5 passengers.

 

[tspear]

The saving fuel by not taking passengers sounds like bad info by the reporters. As a rule of thumb we burn about 10% extra for carrying extra weight so 1000lb worth of passengers will cost you an extra 100lb fuel burn. I’m sure they’d rather have the revenue from those 5 passengers.

Have you seen US passengers? More likely 3 than 5 without luggage!

Tim

 

[Busflyer]

Have you seen US passengers? More likely 3 than 5 without luggage!

Tim

True

 

[LongRoadBob]

There was an article about this on one of the major news orga.
The FAA, and FTC waived the use or lose requirements and said any federal airport that did not follow expect to lose all funding.


Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Seems reasonable. Not sure if the EU has done the same, but hopefully.

The saving fuel by not taking passengers sounds like bad info by the reporters. As a rule of thumb we burn about 10% extra for carrying extra weight so 1000lb worth of passengers will cost you an extra 100lb fuel burn. I’m sure they’d rather have the revenue from those 5 passengers.

Without the actual numbers I also suspected this, but wasn’t sure. They did claim empty flights were happening, if they were correct there might be more to it.

 

[PaulS]

They are filling them up with cargo. I was on a flight a few days ago to get home from a vacation we started in February and asked the same question. We had 3 passengers, 4 flight attendants and two pilots on the flight. The airports were empty with workers milling around. It was an eerie, kind of depressing sight.

 

[tspear]

Just had an idea. Passengers require flight attendants.
Instead of weight, could the flight attendants cost be the issue?

Tim

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

They are filling them up with cargo. I was on a flight a few days ago to get home from a vacation we started in February and asked the same question. We had 3 passengers, 4 flight attendants and two pilots on the flight. The airports were empty with workers milling around. It was an eerie, kind of depressing sight.

Filling them up with cargo? Maybe on major city to major city, but my RJ sure hasn't carried any cargo in 3 weeks...

 

[kayoh190]

Just had an idea. Passengers require flight attendants.
Instead of weight, could the flight attendants cost be the issue?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it's the seating configuration that dictates the need for FAs - not the actual passenger count. If I fly (under Part 121) empty, I'm still required to have four FAs onboard.

 

[dans2992]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it's the seating configuration that dictates the need for FAs - not the actual passenger count. If I fly (under Part 121) empty, I'm still required to have four FAs onboard.

if you’re empty, doesn’t that become part 91?

 

[PaulS]

Filling them up with cargo? Maybe on major city to major city, but my RJ sure hasn't carried any cargo in 3 weeks...

This was a 737, meant to put that in my post.

 

[Skyrys62]

Easy to practice social distancing..
And more importantly, extra peanuts!

 

[Everskyward]

if you’re empty, doesn’t that become part 91?

Not if they're carrying cargo.

 

[AggieMike88]

Very low cost transcon flights available

https://simpleflying.com/us-airlines-slashing-fares/amp/

but at such a low revenue point, how is this going to keep the big picture afloat?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

if you’re empty, doesn’t that become part 91?

Not necessarily.

 

[tspear]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it's the seating configuration that dictates the need for FAs - not the actual passenger count. If I fly (under Part 121) empty, I'm still required to have four FAs onboard.

Interesting; I recall being told when United used to reposition planes at night, it was only flight crew, no attendants. I always assumed they would take cargo along.
Could this be controlled by the FAA approved OPS? (I forget the correct term). It makes no sense to require FA based on seats, not based on passengers.

Tim

 

[Larry in TN]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it's the seating configuration that dictates the need for FAs - not the actual passenger count. If I fly (under Part 121) empty, I'm still required to have four FAs onboard.

The minimum F/A count (1 per 50 installed seats) is only required if there is at least one passenger on board.

if you’re empty, doesn’t that become part 91?

If there are no passengers, and no cargo, a flight can be operated under part 91. It can also be operated under part 121. If there is any cargo, or a single passenger, then it must be part 121.

 

[kayoh190]

Interesting; I recall being told when United used to reposition planes at night, it was only flight crew, no attendants. I always assumed they would take cargo along.

Well, a repositioning flight should be Part 91, not 121. A scheduled flight where no passengers show up will almost always be operated as though it was Part 121. That was the situation I thought we were talking about.

EDIT: didn't notice your comment about cargo originally. Not sure if anyone puts revenue cargo on a repositioning flight (I've never had it happen to me), but yeah in that case it'd be 121. As Larry pointed out, it's possible to be 121 without FAs - and that'd be a good case where that happens. Didn't think about that situation and I should have, as we have passenger 777s flying cargo around, and I'm pretty sure we're not carrying FAs on those flights!

 

[kayoh190]

The minimum F/A count (1 per 50 installed seats) is only required if there is at least one passenger on board.

Huh. I was specifically in this situation last summer. Because of a rolling MX delay all our passengers were rebooked on other flights, and we ended up empty. We had two commuting FAs that could have gone directly home, and we ran it up the chain to see if we could cancel the flight and ferry the plane home under 91 to let the two FAs get home a day early. Of course they wanted the completion factor and forced us to operate as scheduled, but also all four FAs were required to come with us. That's what made me think of it.

But you did make me look in our FOM to see the letter of the law, and you're right. On revenue flights, the table for "Minimum Number of Required Flight Attendants" has two columns - one for "Passengers Onboard", and one for "During Intermediate Stops". There's no mention of the situation for no passengers (at least in our FOM, perhaps it's more clear in CFR 121), but I think only an Air Force Academy guy would complain about that.

One other interesting thing that might have led to the above situation last summer is that our load closeout will *always* have at least one passenger listed, even on a Part 91 ferry flight where nobody is in the back. I haven't gotten a good answer as to why it's the case - whether it's a software thing or something else - but perhaps that's why all four of our FAs were required to come along.

 

[Larry in TN]

Huh. I was specifically in this situation last summer. Because of a rolling MX delay all our passengers were rebooked on other flights, and we ended up empty. We had two commuting FAs that could have gone directly home, and we ran it up the chain to see if we could cancel the flight and ferry the plane home under 91 to let the two FAs get home a day early. Of course they wanted the completion factor and forced us to operate as scheduled, but also all four FAs were required to come with us. That's what made me think of it.

You don't have to cancel the flight and ferry part 91 to get rid of the F/As. If you have zero passengers, even with a full cargo hold, you can operate part 121 without any F/As.

If you have a single piece of cargo, you must be part 121.

If you have a single passenger, you must have the minimum F/A compliment.

 

[falconkidding]

Looking at the boards id say 60% of flights are canceling. For my regional we took an entire regionals flying (TSAs) and still had a 25% drop for april. UA also canceled another 3000 legs and just got another email that another round of cancelations is coming down from UAL. My schedule not counting the new cancelations went from 96 block hrs now its at 51 and probably gonna drop even more. My 24 hour 4 day trip turned into 7 hours with 8 hours of airport appreciation time as i sit in ORD waiting on the one flight home when theres normally 7 to 12 between aa and UA.

 

[kayoh190]

You don't have to cancel the flight and ferry part 91 to get rid of the F/As. If you have zero passengers, even with a full cargo hold, you can operate part 121 without any F/As.

That was the point of my story - they told us the only way to allow the FAs to go home was to cancel and recreate the flight under Part 91, which they couldn't authorize because completion factor was so important to the folks in the cube farms. We took it at face value, but if we had dug into the FOM (like your post prompted me to) we might have been able to better fight for them. That said there might be some other factors that go beyond the FOM that prevented it from happening - I dunno.