Don't visit via NY Airports if at all possible.

6/16/07 12:58:55 PM

I wouldn't worry.

The airlines don't want delays or cancellations any more than you do.

The problem in the NE corridor isn't the airlines. Its the FAA. One delay anywhere from DC to Boston cascades through the entire corridor.

If you'll notice, none of the "solutions" to the problem are controllable by the airlines. Routing, ATC, airport expansion...all government related. For this, we pay over 30 cents on the dollar in taxes (from value of ticket)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,110

by boxley

6/16/07 4:47:25 PM

has more to do with cascading thundershowers in the

afternoons on the east coast. For summer arrival or departures choose early morning or late evenings to avoid delays.
thanx,
bill

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Post #287,114

6/16/07 5:38:22 PM

There wasn't a cloud in the sky yesterday...

afternoon between NC and Maine. Weather wasn't the issue yesterday. The initial delay for an hour or so from DCA to Newark was due to volume - not weather.

Yes, one should keep the weather in mind, but as the Newsday story pointed out, the NE corridor is overloaded as its run now. Even without bad weather, one has to expect the possibility of long delays if one is heading toward the northeast.

At the moment, your general observation holds: The [link|http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/AirportLookup.jsp?q=ewr&go=1|problem in the northeast] is [link|http://www.wunderground.com/radar/mixedcomposite.asp?region=b5&size=2x&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1&MR=1|weather].

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,190

6/18/07 5:06:12 AM

I hope nobody is too surprised?

BeeP opines:

The problem in the NE corridor isn't the airlines. Its the FAA.

Wow, colour me shocked; *shocked*, I say! What, BeeP criticising federal authorities, exonerating Big Business? Wow, film at eleven!!11!oneone!

Or not.

If you'll notice, none of the "solutions" to the problem are controllable by the airlines.

SIGH... Here, re-read the last paragraph of the grandparent to your post:

The airlines are obviously cutting corners on inspections and maintenance - I wonder how many crashes are going to have to happen before they get their acts together... :-( There's the continuing problem, of course, that airlines (and many other industries) will do anything in an attempt to reduce labor costs even if it costs their customers time, money, and aggravation. E.g. in my recent case: Why on Earth don't the airlines inspect their planes on arrival rather than just before the flight? If there's a problem, there's no time to fix it. If they did the inspection the night before, there wouldn't be that problem. "Why? Because it would be too expensive!" :-/

Now could you PLEASE try to grow up into an actual human being, in stead of just a fucking megaphone for BigBizCo Corp, Inc?

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #287,199

6/18/07 8:32:22 AM

Learn something before you shoot off your mouth

None of his >opinions< have anything to do with the facts presented in the article he linked. All of those (routing, Air Traffic control, airport expansion) are government controlled. Those are FACTS. How does me stating facts make me an apologist? Because I state these facts to counter unsubstantiated opinions?

Oh, sorry, its Beep...he's just pro-business. Nice dismissal...if you're 5.

The fact is, airlines have not cut down on maintenance. They aren't allowed. There was another article posted from the Economist that gets it right. It is how far they are pushing the systems that is at issue.

To directly respond to his post...there is, on average, about 45 minutes between arrival and departure of a plane. So inspecting on landing and inspecting prior to takeoff are the same thing. Even on his overnight example, the plane arrives 1am ish...and takes off 8am. Morning shift looks at as soon as they get in.

There simply isn't time. And these guys don't exactly keep hundreds of millions in assets sitting around (spare jets). So once something breaks, it takes time to get a replacement to the right place...unless your Scotty and can just beam a few tons of hardware to the airport.

But, again, understanding reality makes me an apologist. Ooh, the barbed wit.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,201

6/18/07 10:26:19 AM

Before everyone gets off on the wrong foot...

I recognize my comments were anecdotal. I think we all recognize that there are certain minimum standards for maintenance. E.g. apparently part of the delay in my flight was that there are FAA starndards about the maximum size and depth a dent can be on a flight surface - so they had to get a cherry picker and do various measurements....

In my wife's case, the "fuel problem" that caused them to turn back wasn't the only issue. They had a landing gear problem and the plane had to be towed off the runway back to the gate after landing. It's hard to point to that being the FAA's fault.

Yes, it's an anecdotal report, but [link|http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbcsouth/content/local_news/epaper/2007/05/31/m1a_TCCHALKS_0531.html|it's] [link|http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_Dec_20/ai_n15954941|one] [link|http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-03-29-airplane-maintenance_N.htm|of several] examples of things not being as good as it should be in aircraft maintenance land.

Beep writes:

There simply isn't time.

They don't want to make the time because they think it would cost too much money. It took them over 2 hours to figure out what to do in my case, and I lost about 5 hours before I was able to leave. They should have spent the 2-5 hours overnight to get the plane inspected and repair it or get other hardware in place. Or they should have rebooked everyone before loading the plane. It's not heart surgery. They do it the way they do it because they don't care about how much they aggravate their customers in the chase for saving a few hundreths of a cent per mile.

"But customers want low fares!" True. But I don't think I'll fly AA again if I have a choice, and I don't think my wife will fly Continental again either, if she has a choice. The airlines are being penny-wise and pound foolish, IMHO.

Have you seen the recent Southwest ad on TV? The one where the flight attendant lists the prices for all the "services"? :-/

YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,210

6/18/07 11:30:58 AM

They don't think...

they know it will cost too much money.

Even the Southwest model depends on fast turn of planes. I've also seen their "reality tv" show that documents that even the darling of the industry has major issues.

And you linked to 3 maintenance articles with a common theme. FAA is stretched. The base assumption is that if the airlines use a facility that the FAA doesn't watch then the airlines are skimping. Thats an assumption.

And again, I'm sure that there was a problem on your wifes flight. They certainly wouldn't have turned it around if there wasn't. My issue, it seems your assumption is that lack of maintenance created that problem. I don't make that base assumption. Major systems are all on regular maintenance schedules that are regulated by FAA. Landing gear and engines and fuel tanks are all major systems.

Unfortunately it sounds simply like a case of "shit happens". If I were to choose a carrier to not boycott, it would probably be CO or UA. AA, DL and NW are all operating fleets older than me and US can't get a back through Philly airport to the carousel in under an hour. Not fond of the cattle call that is a SW boarding either. YMMV. I fly them all. I have to.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,203

6/18/07 10:28:49 AM

It's not "understanding" reality that is the problem,Candide

it's thinking that that's the only possible -- or best -- way reality *could* ever be configured.

BigBizCo's mouthpiece BeePs:

It is how far they are pushing the systems that is at issue.

Who exactly is "they", here?

Even on his overnight example, the plane arrives 1am ish...and takes off 8am. Morning shift looks at as soon as they get in.

Why not the night shift, before they go home?

And these guys don't exactly keep hundreds of millions in assets sitting around (spare jets).

Why the fuck not???

Isn't it fucking obvious, even to you, that they SHOULD?!?

So once something breaks, it takes time to get a replacement to the right place...unless your Scotty and can just beam a few tons of hardware to the airport.

Or unless you're a fucking billions-of-dollars AirlineCo Inc, Corp, and could *buy a few more fucking planes*, perhaps?

But, again, understanding reality makes me an apologist. Ooh, the barbed wit.

And [moved from beginning of post]:

Oh, sorry, its Beep...he's just pro-business. Nice dismissal...if you're 5.

I apply the same measure to you as to Andrea Dear: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Could you tell me what, exactly, is wrong with that?

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #287,204

by boxley

6/18/07 10:40:44 AM

6/18/07 10:41:32 AM

considering most american airlines are in bankrupcy

or just out, what do you suggest they buy these spare planes with?
thanx,
bill

Edited by boxley June 18, 2007, 10:41:32 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #287,205

6/18/07 10:46:09 AM

IIRC, most airlines don't own their planes.

They're leased from GE and other big finance houses.

AFAIK, neither Continental nor American are in bankruptcy.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,206

6/18/07 10:47:32 AM

Do you want to fly?

Because you can't expect an industry to lose more that its ever made and still operate without making the most of what they have.

Really basic economics.

Even countries can't support the losses for long, hence swissair, sabina, alitalia, varig, etc...all either sold, shut down or very close.

No its not obvious that an airline that operates 3000+ flights a day keep a hot spare for every flight at every airport. Unless you want it equally obvious that noone but the big biz you seem to rail against actually be able to use the service.

That, to me, is an unrealistic expectation. Doesn't keep Scott from having that unrealistic expectation but hey, its a free country.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,209

6/18/07 11:25:32 AM

At least two obvious errors

No its not obvious that an airline that operates 3000+ flights a day keep a hot spare for every flight at every airport.

Do you expect *every* plane to develop faults?!? Otherwise, ONE spare *at each AIRPORT* should do the trick, shunnit?

OK, I'll let them skip the really small ones. But maybe they should put two at the really big ones. Still, quite a lot fewer than "a hot spare for every flight at every airport", mr Strawman.

2:

...but hey, its a free country.

HTH!

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #287,211

6/18/07 11:38:56 AM

Ok Mr Euro

Do you know how many airports are in operation in the US? Even "big ones".

Lets see, Newark, Kennedy, Philly, Washington (BWI, Dulles, Reagan) RDU, ATL, TPA, MCO, ORD, LAX, IAH, HOU, DFW, BOS, SLC, SeaTac, SFO, MSP, MIA, TPA, CLT, DEN, PHX, CVG...take a breath cause I'm not even at the "small" airports yet.

Quite different from the 1 per country you are used to.

Its not feasible.

So much for your "obvious error".

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,214

6/18/07 1:07:45 PM

6/19/07 9:58:45 AM

There are ways around these problems.

Airlines know they don't have spare planes to push to the gates. But they also know that there's no slack in the system. And they know that people are getting fed up with delays over relatively simple things like this. (On another leg of my recent trip, the departure was delayed about 20 minutes while they found a new bottom seat cushion because one was wet.)

If I knew I was going to piss off hundreds of people as a result of not checking things early enough to get them fixed if they're minor issues, or getting alternate arrangements in place if they're major, then I'd seriously think about changing the way I do business. I think that's Christian's point. When there's an issue and a flight is canceled or delayed for hours, the airlines find a way to solve the problem. I'm simply asking that they take a few hours out of the process. At the moment, they seem to have little interest in doing so.

I agree that little can be done about weather or ATC overruns (though changes in procedures and alternate routes can often help). I'm not asking for them to control extreme events; simply do a better job at what seem to be routine checks.

Either:

1) Have a few hot spares in the region (remember that the DC/NY and Boston/NY [link|http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/10/12/low_cost_ny_hub_air_fares_reappear/?page=1|Shuttles] used to be able to roll another plane out when one was full).

2) Create a regional "overflow" subsidiary that can supply a plane to member airlines with minimal notice. The planes could be used for charters, etc., when demand was low.

3) Reward competence. Get everyone in the airline to buy into the idea that anything that makes flying unpleasant drives away business.

4) Supply relevant information to customers. Don't keep them in the dark about how long repairs will take. If people don't have information that's useful in helping them decide to make other arrangements, they'll bail at the earliest opportunity even if it's not necessary. That means their bags will have to be removed, further delaying the departure.

5) Hire more maintenance crews and impress upon them the importance of doing the job right while doing it efficiently. [link|http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=1036|Quit overworking them] in the hope of squeezing another hundredth of a cent out of the per-mile cost.

And so on. Things like these don't have to cost billions of dollars. There's little reason why they can't do several of them.

The airlines need to change.

BMW didn't get to be one of the most profitable car makes by being the cheapest and squeezing every cent out of the business....

My $0.02. I think I'm about done.

[edit:] Homonym typo...

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who appreciates your comments about the various carriers.)

Edited by Another Scott June 19, 2007, 09:58:45 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #287,229

6/18/07 2:27:50 PM

Re: There are ways around these problems.

Well, the shuttles used to roll out 50 seaters to oversell the 150 seaters. Not like for like.

And they don't do that anymore.

To create a regional "overflow" carrier would 1) violate antitrust...and 2) not be a really good business model to invest in..since the goal would be to NEVER use it.

On rewarding competence, at least one airline does this (CO) that I'm aware of. Bonuses are awarded for on time performance and other key stats. Exceptional customer service gives the employee a shot at a ford explorer. They give away a couple dozen cars a year iirc.

I have no issue at all with #4. Its dead accurate and something I have been in a position to share with airline leadership and have to at least 3 majors.

Hiring more maintenance crews does cost billions of dollars. And to do so on the "pssobilities" of overwork being blamed by an ergonomics journal may be a bit...rash.

How many people get (read "can afford) to buy a BMW?

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,233

6/18/07 3:00:47 PM

On the last one...

How many people get (read "can afford) to buy a BMW?

Enough for BMW to make a lot of money.

The point I was trying to make was, not everyone should have a low-cost-at-the-expense-of-everything-else business model. The airlines don't have to be run as badly as they are (from a customer-service perspective). (Yes, I know about [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_Airways|Braniff] and others who tried a full-service model and failed.) Flying used to be fun - there's no reason why it can't be again.

I know you know more about this industry than I ever will. I'm relating my experiences and what seems to make sense based on what I've read. Maybe deregulated airlines are a lost cause; maybe national flag carriers are a lost cause too. I don't know. All I do know is that I and many other people I know refuse to fly unless we have to. Anything less than ~ 600 miles, I'll drive unless it's a one day trip. It's much cheaper, and it's often a wash in the amount of time required (security, delays, changing planes, etc., etc.).

They're going backwards on lots of [link|http://www.transtats.bts.gov/HomeDrillChart.asp|statistics] that matter to people flying, and even if part/most/all of it is the FAA's fault, they need to change the way they do business because what they're doing is pissing off a lot of people.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,235

by boxley

6/18/07 3:15:06 PM

in agreement sort of

I just extended my driving range to 800 miles. There is a two fold problem. One is customer service. When you have had your pay sliced continously you either leave or dont give a rats ass about being nice to customers. You are serving a lot more and getting paid a lot less. The parts and serviceability is a separate issue. You outsource the mechanic work to people who are paid considerably less than in house mechanics and are often the same folks you laid off during the bankrupcy. They have a vested interest in work to rule. Also they will attempt to meet FAA guidelines to the nth degree and having the manager of the airline screaming at them doesnt work like it used to.

On the other hand one can fly to most destinations in the US very cheaply. If you are going from NY to Seattle check out amtrack prices. Even the hound will have a hard time to match the fares the airlines offer. So speed and low price is what makes people want to fly. Lousy CS and delays are part of that price.
thanx,
bill

Post #287,239

6/18/07 4:25:58 PM

Well said.

Maybe BP can chime in on what it "really" costs, but I doubt that people would change their plans if it cost 10-30% more on a flight if it got them higher on-time percentages and better service. People are still buying first-class tickets and they're still putting up with delays and cancellations like the rest of us, and the planes are full, so it's not just the low ticket price that's causing the problems.

People don't fly as much if the price doubles, but small percentage changes usually are in the noise. E.g. gasoline has gone up a lot but people aren't changing their driving habits much.

Hypothetical e.g. DCA to ATL on July 9, returning July 13: Round trip, nonstop, coach $275 to $464 per person, with most of them in the $275 - $295 per person range. Why can't they make money at that fare? Business/First Class is $658 to $768 for the same conditions. (All on Travelocity.) (No, I'm not going to be taking such a trip, it's just an example. :-) United's fares are nuts - the flights go through Chicago and they're $439 to $1064 for Coach!

I'm in whole-hearted agreement that management (or more often the corporation) usually eventually reaps what they sow when it comes to employee compensation and so forth.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,237

6/18/07 3:36:22 PM

Unfortunately

there is a large discrepancy between what people want and what can be provided at anything approaching affordable.

There is no doubt that the majors could do better...but one of the key reasons people seem happier with southwest is because they EXPECT crappy service from them...but seem to expect more from the others without actually expecting to pay for it.

Security. Sucks yes...but at this point I'm back to arriving 1 hr before flight time and making my flights without much of an issue. Thats roughly the same as pre-9/11.

My fly/drive is 5 hours...roughly 300 miles.

Personally, I think the airlines should charge a min fare based on per seat variable cost. This will mean that the price is at least loosely based on what it costs them to operate. Unfortunately, that would also mean that I would not be able to afford to see my parents on a regular basis, as I wouldn't be able to afford the flights.

ATC needs to be overhauled and the airlines need to assist in this by volunteering to reduce frequency, which is essentially what they agreed to do at O'Hare to limit congestion and delays.

Summer weather is summer weather, though...and delays from April to October WILL happen, no matter what. [link|http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html|Somewhere there is a thunderstorm screwing up somebody's flight.]

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,240

6/18/07 4:27:19 PM

Re: roughly the same as pre-9/11.

Security. Sucks yes...but at this point I'm back to arriving 1 hr before flight time and making my flights without much of an issue. Thats roughly the same as pre-9/11.

B.S. You need really broad definitions of "roughly" to make that comment work. I've personally gotten my dad and his bags on an airplane after having arrived at the airport 10 minutes prior to departure. *That* was pre-9/11. Also, pre-9/11, I could pull 22T up to the gate with a passenger and bags and put them directly on a commercial carrier. *That* was also pre-9/11. Commercial air travel will never again be "roughly pre-9/11"-esque.

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #287,243

6/18/07 4:33:15 PM

True enough

if you have to check bags you aren't going to be able to do that 10 minute sprint anymore.

But I arrived with check-on luggage only last week 25 minutes prior to flight and wasn't breathing heavy when I sat down on the plane. I had checked in prior to leaving for the airport and midday there was little in the way of lines at security.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,314

6/19/07 12:46:58 PM

I think that varies with location.

If you're standing in line for security screening at FWA or LAX 20 minutes before the flight departs, you don't get on the airplane period.

Post #287,317

by boxley

6/19/07 1:04:39 PM

or ATL, the other day the had the queue going outside the

terminal with a 2-3 hour wait for screening.
thanx,
bill

Post #287,371

6/19/07 11:40:43 PM

I got out pretty quick last time

and I was running VERY late for the flight.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,242

by pwhysall

6/18/07 4:31:01 PM

6/18/07 4:31:20 PM

Re: There are ways around these problems.

How many people get (read "can afford") to buy a BMW?

Lots. In the UK last year, the 3 series outsold the Ford Mondeo. (A Taurus-like vehicle; FF, 2L-ish, 4 doors, saloon)

Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]

Edited by pwhysall June 18, 2007, 04:31:20 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #287,244

6/18/07 4:51:13 PM

What,you got "3000+" airports? "Big" ones? No? QED: Strawman

From "3000+" flights to 26 airports, that's a diff of two orders of magnitude. So your attempt at implying they'd need 3000+ "hot spare" aircraft per airline *was* bullshit.

And could you go easy on the "one per country Mr Euro" crapola too, mr Everything-is-so-fucking-much-bigger-and-therefore-better-in-America? Thank you.

(Otherwise, if you're going to persist in trying to earn that nickname... It's just too frigging long for everyday use, so we'd have to come up with some shorter one. How'd'ya like the ring of "Ugly American"?)

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #287,251

6/18/07 6:19:00 PM

6/18/07 6:20:18 PM

You were the one saying they should have spares

and then counter with the "only one or 2 at the big airports"...which now calculates out to 50 jets per airline times the (for limited arguments sake) the top 8 airlines...so your now have 400 jets sitting idle at a cost of some 65 million per unit.

Roughly, you assume that the airlines could park 26 billion in assets. Thats about 5 million a day (if you assume no compounding) or about 650k per day per airline. (also 7% cost of capital is assumed)

227 million is about 3/4 what the most profitable US airline made last year and thats what you want them to absorb JUST IN CARRYING COST. No maintenance. No crew training. No hangar costs.

I didn't say anything was bigger or better here. Simply that you assume that "only the big airports" seemed to be some magical limitation on what it would take to accomplish your "simple" solution.

So, you bring up the idea "these billion dollar us airline companies" should just run out and buy all sorts of extra jets..then limit it to "only the big airports" and assume that makes it "realistic".

I can take "ugly American" if it means I'm telling you a truth that you don't want to hear or acknowledge.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Edited by bepatient June 18, 2007, 06:20:18 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #287,279

6/19/07 3:29:18 AM

Next fix...

...that sometimes even genuinely capitalistic for-profit companies come up with all on their own:

Let them pool their resources. It doesn't even really have to be "one or two hot spares *per airline* per airport", which apparently would make it 8-16 spare aeroplanes per airport; if we assume (can we?) that not *every* bloody airline will have a plane break *every* day at *every* airport (do they?), then two or three planes, *total*, per airport, should do the trick. Have the airlines found some SparePlane Co that they each own equal shares in (or in relation to the number of planes they operate, or whatever), let that run the spare plane operation, and then they all can draw spares from its common pool. What are we down to now; 75 planes, total?

Then about the maintenance, crew training, and hangar costs... The only one of those that they'd *actually* incur would be the hangar cost, wouldn't it? They have crews already; they'd actually be using them *less*, if in stead of having them hang around and wait for a broken plane to be repaired and then fly it, as they do now, they could just switch them to another plane and fly away without the wait. Same goes for maintenance: The same number of miles (or trips or hours) would be flown (only spread over a few more planes), so the same amount of maintenance work would be needed (only spread over a few more planes). These last two arguments go for either number of spare aircraft, BTW; 75 or 400 or any number above, below, or in between.

Funny how a smart guy like you doesn't SEE those things on his own, innit..? Or could that possibly, *possibly*, be because you don't WANT TO see?

And no, honey, you're only really ugly when you throw snide little bullshit barbs like "One airport per country like you Euros are used to" around you. Which I thought I'd made quite clear in my previous post. No use trying to pretend it is your "telling [me] a truth" that pisses me off, when I explicitly *said* it was your behaving like the stereotypical Ugly American that makes me contemplate whether the moniker "Ugly American" would fit.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #287,282

by Ashton

6/19/07 5:20:00 AM

But.. but...

such a scheme would require that a bunch of COMPETING biznessmen, CIEIOs making tens of millions/year + perks (several hundred X the rate of each fired mechanic) -- these would have to imagine something beyond ^all they have ever known^ -- a concept so alien to the Spirit of John Galt as to be unutterable above whisper -

They would have to cooperate! -- small enough to prevent apoplexy?

And to what end?
Merely to improve the experience of the already-captive audience of their commodity service, reduce their overall costs, thus ticket prices.

Who could predict what moral perversions might follow from such a scary idea as, "viewing the Whole Picture from the POV of the powerless buyer" of transportation; then to ponder: passengers flying, for the first time, in an Unbranded Logo-free generic airplane!

Merely to expedite passengers to their destinations, without artificial delay. Is that not surreal?

Of course this is unthinkable, except in backwards countries whose carriers possess no sense of Corporate Destiny, no spirit of Winner-take-All (save for the odd foot games where the ball is.. 'round'?)

HTH

SAP Individual Travel Services-the-Murican-Way, LLC

Post #287,288

by boxley

6/19/07 9:01:36 AM

dont forget shareholders who would squat sqare bricks

Post #287,292

6/19/07 9:33:49 AM

Ignore them, they're just filthy capitalists

and once we're done fixing their problems here, the shareholders will be RICH...RICH I tell you...RICH!

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,309

by boxley

6/19/07 11:16:15 AM

if it takes longer than the next quarter forget it

Post #287,291

6/19/07 9:32:49 AM

It must be simple

forget that there are just a few different jets in use (MD80, 727,737,747,757,A319,320,330,340) each requiring a crew certified to operate that plane, each with different seating configurations (is it better to inconvenience a select few or all passengers equally on an affected flight...how do you choose the lucky few).

Ok, so only get one that holds more than the max of any.

You're back to having to have crews sitting...you can't recycle because crews are specific to aircraft type.

And on the maintenance, airlines are required to carry a certain amount of spares for every aircraft of every type in their fleet. This is why most airlines pick a Boeing OR Airbus and stick. For some US carriers that have grown by glue this is a very large part of their embedded expense (like United for example). Too many different aircraft types make their maintenance operation very expensive.

I find it more amusing that you feel compelled to tell someone how simple it would be to "fix" their business without having the first clue about how it works.

I guess we'll keep each other laughing...

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #287,313

by boxley

6/19/07 11:21:09 AM

he's a conslutant of course he doesnt need to understand the

bidness to fix it, its what he does for a living :-)
thanx,
bill

Post #287,333

6/19/07 5:49:04 PM

Not that kind of conslutant-I'm a code slave w/ weird title.

Post #287,212

6/18/07 11:39:57 AM

:-) on #2. Or maybe :-(...

Post #287,216

6/18/07 1:12:15 PM

The FAA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the airlines.

Listen to approach/departure at any Class B airport from 6am to 9:30. Then listen (to largely nothing) from 9:30am until 4pm. Then it picks up again. Wanna know why? Because the airline industry is *de-regulated*. It's been up to the airlines since 1978 to set their flight schedules. And since everyone wants to leave in the morning and return in the evening, the nation's airspace is *packed* during those hours and underutilized during off-hours. The BL is that people have a perceived need to travel by air and they want to do it for free. Then the airlines want the taxpayers to subsidize their losses. Hell, there's an airline in Fort Wayne, IN that offers a $39.00 seat to Orlando, FL. Even filling every seat in every airplane, that company can't break even (let alone profit) from such fares. So, why do they do it? Because they know the Fed will bail them out.

In 1957, a ticket from New York to Los Angeles aboard a DC-3 cost the equivalent of $1,000 and flight time was 8-10 hours with a couple of stops for fuel along the way. It wasn't until jets became the standard for the commercial carriers that the common man could afford to fly. The Fed controlled flight schedules and the fares. The Fed made sure small market airfields had business. The Fed made sure the system load was even. We had competition based upon service, not price, which made flying fun (not to mention safer). Now, good ol' Murican bidness is in charge and the entire industry is in the sewer.

Post #287,219

6/18/07 1:33:38 PM

There is an obvious solution to that problem.

It's been up to the airlines since 1978 to set their flight schedules. And since everyone wants to leave in the morning and return in the evening, the nation's airspace is *packed* during those hours and underutilized during off-hours.

There's a solution to that problem that would help just about everyone.

There should be an auction of takeoff and landing slots, run by the FAA or some other national authority, with a reasonable fraction reserved for smaller carriers, GA, etc.

If business travelers want to leave at 7:30 and come back at 5:30, then companies should be willing to pay extra for those time slots. If nobody wants to fly at noon, make it cheaper so that people will.

As long as its done in a way that is fair (e.g. don't let MegaGlobal Airlines buy up all the prime slots and sit on them, don't let the majors collude to keep out low priced carriers, etc.), then just about everyone benefits. People who need to be there, pay more. People who are flexible, pay less. The system doesn't have to be designed to handle tremendous loads for 10% of the day. Airlines get more use out of their hardware. Delays should go down, and more people would be willing to fly.

I'm sure Adam Smith and Alfred Kahn would approve.

What's the downside?

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #287,238