The state of air travel here in the US

[Guest novabear22031]

The mention of odd hotels and Yotel at Gatwick left me with these thoughts....

 

It seems that the between the airlines and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system here in the US, we are getting close to a melt-down situation:

 

*** From the Washington Post on 8/7/07:

 

Woe be unto those who took a domestic flight in June.

 

The month was the one of the worst for air travelers in the past 12 years, according to data released by the Transportation Department yesterday. Nearly a third of domestic flights operated by major U.S. airlines were delayed or canceled, and the first six months of the year had the most delays the industry has experienced since the government began tracking data in 1995. ***

 

The problem IMO, at it seems that some data backs this up at least for the crowded airspace over NYC (LGA, JFK, and EWR), that more flights are being scheduled but with out thought as to already known delays due to weather and the such.

 

I experienced a 2 some hour delay leaving PSP in the beginning of June, due to all reasons rain in ORD - where I was to make a connecting flight. Not thunderstorms or high winds - but a light rain that closed down one of the runways. Thereby restricting air traffic in to ORD.

 

Lucky for me, my connecting flight was delayed and would meet the noise requirements to land at DCA after their noise curfew. Not so lucky for a family of 12 -15 that was on their way to Rome from Atlanta I met as I waited for my now 3.5 hour delayed flight. They had been scheduled to arrive at 12N at ORD for their 3:30PM flight. Their flight from Atlanta did not arrive till 3:45PM! It seems that the Rome flight was one of the few at ORD that day that left on time.

 

When I met up this family at just around 10PM in the food court, they were on their way to catch a flight to Raleigh-Durham - where they would be catching a flight to JFK top catch the next days flight to Rome. Just hope they made it.

 

I know about the trick about flying out as early as possible (at least here on the East Coast). For as much as I like visiting the West Coast, guess the advice would be taking a red-eye back East for you more seasoned travelers?

 

Or do we buck it up as travelers, and if we need to be somewhere by a certain time - just fly in a day ahead and pay that cost? Or are we willing to pay some more to reduce capacity in order to get ourselves to a even 80-90% on-time rate?

 

Thoughts and comments?

[KMEM]

I am not a defender of the FAA (ATC) but they are usually only indirectly to blame for most of the delays. When they know there is a problem they usually instigate ground stops or gate holds, but they are the authority that has allowed the airlines to have too many flights going to/from the same places at approximately the same times.

 

That is basically the underlying reason for delays-the hub and spoke system the airlines have put into place beginning in 1979 with deregulation as proposed and passed by Jimmy Carter and the Congress of that time. We are all familiar with having to go somewhere we don't want to go before we get to go where we really want to go. That means going from a hub to a hub or from a spoke to a hub before you get to go to the spoke which is your ultimate destination, unless your destination happens to also be a hub. If you do go from hub to hub or live in a hub, you will be penalized by higher fares derived from the airlines conclusion that you have more destinations available to you without first going to another hub. As you probably already know you have no rights with the airlines except those specifically mentioned in their carriage contract, very few indeed.

 

What is the solution, you ask? Re-regulation has a certain appeal but then everyone will be paying higher fares. More concrete, meaning more airports, will certainly be a step in the right direction. There are two main things that are holding fares where they are: One, the continuing appearance of low fare, in some cases no frills, airlines and,two, the fact that airlines are the most cut throat industry that ever existed. They will actually lose money consistently on a route in order to put another route holder out of business, for at least that route. Amazing.

 

The American way is to have every thing bigger, better, faster and now. At some point we will need to have a different technology for mass travel whether that will be bigger aircraft going to fewer places with better infrastructure of ground transporatation or some thing not thought of yet, I don't know which might happen. We can't continue to turn farm land into condo's, highways or airports. We have to eat.

 

In a way, the solution for the near term future is similar to conserving water when there is a drought or fuel when gas is $4 a gallon. Conserving is given a certain amount of lip service in this country but has not really made much of an impact. I like to make noise and go fast like every one else but I try not to waste any thing including needless transportation.

 

We won't even go into TSA, etc. with their waste of time (ours).

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[ted]

Headline in LA Times today:

"Glitsch Strands 20,000 at LAX"

 

Apparently the customs computers went down at 2 in the afternoon and didn't come back for .... and the backups only came up around 7PM and worked at half speed so anyone on an international flight was stranded on the plane for between 4 and 8 hours depending on when the flight arrived.

[+ deej]

That article is here:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lax12aug12,0,5727961.story?coll=la-home-center

 

This delay had nothing to do with air traffic control, or even the airlines, it was the customs computer system. The lack of redundancy is problematic, but I'd have to know much more about the system in use to really determine the level of inadequacy.

 

The backup system only runs at 50% capacity? Not much of a backup system!

 

Air travel has been getting steadily worse over the last few years, and I'm at a point where I avoid it at all if I can. If a destination is within a day's drive, I'll take the day before I need to be there and drive rather than book a flight the day before and deal with inevitable delays. (My luggage doesn't get lost either. ;-))

 

Also, as a smoker, being locked up inside the airlines' non-smoking ecosystems for hours on end is already uncomfortable. Add to that the number of hotels that are now completely non-smoking and you have an uncomfortable trip that lands you at an uncomfortable destination.

 

Travel doesn't hold much allure for me right now. x(

[buckguy]

The hub & spoke system was largely in place well before deregulation. United & American have dominated O'Hare for decades. United had hubs at Cleveland Hopkins & Seattle, as well. The Cleveland hub was moved to Dulles in the 80s and Seattle has been downgraded. Atlanta has been Delta's hub for decades. JFK was Pan Am's hub and so it goes. The low far lines often are lauded for point to point service, but also have hubs, usually at secondary airports like BWI or Chicago-Midway, but sometimes at majors like AirTran at Atlanta.

 

The problem now is over capacity. Airports need to balance competition which brings down price (and increasing capacity) against the convenience offered by a hub airport. Talk to people who have no choice but puddle jumper service via a hub. Some cities subsidize some of the hub service to insure that their cities are prime business destinations. The infrastructure at most airports is dated. Atlanta takes pride in being #1 in traffic but has insufficient and poorly located runways, as well as a very dysfunctional approach to security which predated TSA.

 

Building new airports and airport expansions would help, but take years and cost money. Historically, airlines have borne most of the cost, but the post-bankruptcy world of major carriers probably limits that.

[KMEM]

Sorry that you are still a smoker.

 

I know that it is difficult to stop smoking. I smoked for many, many years and, I will admit, there is nothing worse than an ex-smoker relative prostelyzing.

 

But, if you sincerely wish to quit, I would be more than willing to share what worked for me.

 

Best regards,

 

KMEM

[KMEM]

You are correct that hubs existed before deregulation but only at the very large cities at the time. ATL, ORD, LAX, JFK, SFO and a few others were the main ones. It has now been expanded to include many, many others.

 

The airlines did not directly bear the cost of building new airports but the taxpayers, either locally or federally, did. Yes, they all hoped the airlines, with increased business, would pay for them, but there were no guarantees.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[ted]

>

>The problem now is over capacity.

 

Not sure I follow that logic! There really aren't too many flights scheduled. Been on a plane recently? If there are more than 5 empty seats on anything thats unusual. United flew at about 90% capacity in June and I expect similar numbers in July and August. Whomever posted about the family that missed their connection, unfortunately those stories are increasingly common. On my last flight to Europe,-twas the Sat after the Friday the FAA computers went down on the East Coast-they missed their connection to Frankfurt and 24 hours later didn't know for sure how they would get there. Sitting in the terminal they were confirmed on a flight to Milan leaving in a couple of hours, but no confirmation of Milan to Frankfurt. And their checked bags, no one was saying for sure where they were. With the flights typically booked full the rerouting options are very limited. The gate agent worked some magic as I did see them on the Frankfurt flight after we took off.

[Epigonos]

The people I really feel sorry for are the buisness men and women who fly out of their home city on Monday morning, fly around their territory during the week and return home on Friday afternoon. These poor people are at the mercy of poorly run airlines and airports.

I, on the other hand, fly simply for pleasure; that is to visit places where I want to rest or sightsee. If I am taking a cruise I ALWAYS plan to arrive the day before the ship departs. I always try to get a direct flight to my destination regardless of cost. If I do have to make a connection I always insist on allowing a three to four hour connection window. One thing that does amazes me is that airlines still insist on booking passengers on connecting flights with as little as 45 minutes to 1 hour between flights. When I return to LA from Acapulco I always fly through Houston. On the return trip Continental Airlines insists that 1 hour and 40 minutes is sufficient to get through immigrations, retrieve my baggage, proceed through customs, leave the security area, find my new gate, go back through security, and board. It simply doesn't work BUT they won't admit it. Now since it is on the return I don't care as they have to put me up for the night pay for my meals and fly me out the next morning -- stupid. Now if I insist on taking a later connecting flight I am punished by paying for the two flights just as if I were taking two separate unconnected trips -- a lot more money.

[Guest novabear22031]

I think "capacity" was referring to an airports ability to handle the load, not the airlines capacity.

 

Example is Virgin America joining the fray at JFK. The NYC airspace is crowded already with JFK, EWR, LGA, and HPN airports. Some will correct me if I am wrong for sure, but each airport has a rated capacity for takeoffs and landings - mostly based on clear weather standards. This is the basis on deciding how many flights there can be at an airport. But weather or another ripple upset the balance, and then you can have nation-wide delays.

 

Until we can find places to build more airports, I think the last new airport built in the US the current Denver airport, we need to look at ways of getting fewer flights in the air. The best way would be to shift to higher capacity jets flying fewer flights between major city pairs. Sort of a super-hub if you will.

 

Yes, this would probably mean less "convenient" flight times. Think of it as flex-time for the skyways. Could help maintain profitability for the airlines (and I am sure that Seaboy will like this, a return of flight attendants and gate crews being a part of the middle class).

 

We also need to rethink how we move people between city pairs. Does it make much sense for my trip to PSP this past June from DCA to connect through ORD, if there had been a high-speed rail link from lets say LAX or SNA to PSP , I would have been more than happy to made the trip IAD for such a connection. Sure let me decide if I would prefer the convenience of fly out of DCA - but charge me accordingly.

 

Then there is the issue of funding for the ATC system. It is based in part on user fees. I read some where that a commercial airliner pays like $1500 for an average flight in ATC fees. Yet a corporate jet users pays only a small fraction of that fee. Same use of manpower and technology of the ATC system, but not paying their fare share.

 

The basic infrastructure of this nation is beginning to crumble. Our roads and bridges are in need of much need repair. Our water and sewer lines are failing. Compared to Europe, we have too great of a reliance on our cars and direct air service to get us where we want to go.

 

There is no quick fix for sure, but if we don't act - we will could see many more delays and even deaths from an over used ATC system.....

[Guest novabear22031]

I think "capacity" was referring to an airports ability to handle the load, not the airlines capacity.

 

Example is Virgin America joining the fray at JFK. The NYC airspace is crowded already with JFK, EWR, LGA, and HPN airports. Some will correct me if I am wrong for sure, but each airport has a rated capacity for takeoffs and landings - mostly based on clear weather standards. This is the basis on deciding how many flights there can be at an airport. But weather or another ripple upset the balance, and then you can have nation-wide delays.

 

Until we can find places to build more airports, I think the last new airport built in the US the current Denver airport, we need to look at ways of getting fewer flights in the air. The best way would be to shift to higher capacity jets flying fewer flights between major city pairs. Sort of a super-hub if you will.

 

Yes, this would probably mean less "convenient" flight times. Think of it as flex-time for the skyways. Could help maintain profitability for the airlines (and I am sure that Seaboy will like this, a return of flight attendants and gate crews being a part of the middle class).

 

We also need to rethink how we move people between city pairs. Does it make much sense for my trip to PSP this past June from DCA to connect through ORD, if there had been a high-speed rail link from lets say LAX or SNA to PSP , I would have been more than happy to made the trip IAD for such a connection. Sure let me decide if I would prefer the convenience of fly out of DCA - but charge me accordingly.

 

Then there is the issue of funding for the ATC system. It is based in part on user fees. I read some where that a commercial airliner pays like $1500 for an average flight in ATC fees. Yet a corporate jet users pays only a small fraction of that fee. Same use of manpower and technology of the ATC system, but not paying their fare share.

 

The basic infrastructure of this nation is beginning to crumble. Our roads and bridges are in need of much need repair. Our water and sewer lines are failing. Compared to Europe, we have too great of a reliance on our cars and direct air service to get us where we want to go.

 

There is no quick fix for sure, but if we don't act - we will could see many more delays and even deaths from an over used ATC system.....

[KMEM]

Now, you have pushed a hot button. Corporate aircraft and other general aviation aircraft (GA) are not a major cause of delays, especially at airline airports. There are literally thousands of other airports mainly used by GA. GA aircraft pay a fuel tax; the more fuel per hour used and the more hours flown, the more tax they pay. Airlines try to act as if they are public utilities and just pass any taxes right on to the customer. TSA, facility taxes, ticket taxes; just take a look, they are a part of your ticket invoice. GA tries to get out of the ATC system as soon as possible and practible; if the weather is good and/or they are not going to an airline airport, they will remove themselves from the system. Airlines forbid themselves from doing this. You will read stories to the contrary in some media but I consider most of that, "yellow journalism", or to be more polite, ignorant of the facts.

 

Quote from the Bureau of Transporatation Statistics: The major causes of airline delays are weather and acheduling. 40% of airline delays are caused by weather, 25% are caused by their own malfunctions; maintenance, crew unavailability, baggagle handling, fueling, etc. 28% are caused by National Aviation System delays which include airport operational delays of various sorts to include too many flights scheduled to arrive/depart. The latter is an airline self caused delay, pure and simple. At 17 out of 35 hub airports, the airlines have scheduled more flights than the airport can handle if the weather is even IFR, meaning the clouds are below 1000 feet above the ground and/or the visibility is less than 3 miles. Not very bad weather but weather that forces the airport to follow instrument approaches to it. Some of the worst include ORD, ATL, EWR, JFK, KSP, SLC, SFO and LAS. ( Those are airport ID's and everyone who flies has been through one or more of them.) Conclusion: Weather and scheduling is what causes airline delays.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[KMEM]

Now, you have pushed a hot button. Corporate aircraft and other general aviation aircraft (GA) are not a major cause of delays, especially at airline airports. There are literally thousands of other airports mainly used by GA. GA aircraft pay a fuel tax; the more fuel per hour used and the more hours flown, the more tax they pay. Airlines try to act as if they are public utilities and just pass any taxes right on to the customer. TSA, facility taxes, ticket taxes; just take a look, they are a part of your ticket invoice. GA tries to get out of the ATC system as soon as possible and practible; if the weather is good and/or they are not going to an airline airport, they will remove themselves from the system. Airlines forbid themselves from doing this. You will read stories to the contrary in some media but I consider most of that, "yellow journalism", or to be more polite, ignorant of the facts.

 

Quote from the Bureau of Transporatation Statistics: The major causes of airline delays are weather and acheduling. 40% of airline delays are caused by weather, 25% are caused by their own malfunctions; maintenance, crew unavailability, baggagle handling, fueling, etc. 28% are caused by National Aviation System delays which include airport operational delays of various sorts to include too many flights scheduled to arrive/depart. The latter is an airline self caused delay, pure and simple. At 17 out of 35 hub airports, the airlines have scheduled more flights than the airport can handle if the weather is even IFR, meaning the clouds are below 1000 feet above the ground and/or the visibility is less than 3 miles. Not very bad weather but weather that forces the airport to follow instrument approaches to it. Some of the worst include ORD, ATL, EWR, JFK, KSP, SLC, SFO and LAS. ( Those are airport ID's and everyone who flies has been through one or more of them.) Conclusion: Weather and scheduling is what causes airline delays.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ ArVaGuy]

Here's some interesting reading from the Wall Street Journal regarding the impact of smaller planes on the ATC system. However, its not GA that's the issue. It's the smaller RJ's put into service by the airlines that are compounding the problem.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118696365326095429.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one

[+ ArVaGuy]

Here's some interesting reading from the Wall Street Journal regarding the impact of smaller planes on the ATC system. However, its not GA that's the issue. It's the smaller RJ's put into service by the airlines that are compounding the problem.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118696365326095429.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one

[KMEM]

As you can see, it is a complicated issue. As you can read in that article the FAA and airports have tried slots and high fees in the past and the airlines have talked them out of them. Having the smaller airliners go to a smaller hub first and consolidating into a bigger aircraft when going to a bigger hub would reduce the problem, but that solution would have to be mandated by the FAA and ultimately the Congress. The airlines would never agree among themselves to do any thing like that, no matter how much sense it made. They schedule, for instance, AA, UA and NW flights all at 0800 from ORD to LGA and then fight to be on the runway first and fight to be first to LGA. It would make sense for one to leave at 0800, one at 0810 and one at 0820 but no one wants to be the 0820 departure or even the 0810 one. Take turns you say. HA, not me, they would say.

 

The FAA and the airports don't have the authority to completely solve this problem without the co-operation of the airlines. Congress can enact laws giving the FAA the authority but that just turns the whole issue back into politics, not just business.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[KMEM]

As you can see, it is a complicated issue. As you can read in that article the FAA and airports have tried slots and high fees in the past and the airlines have talked them out of them. Having the smaller airliners go to a smaller hub first and consolidating into a bigger aircraft when going to a bigger hub would reduce the problem, but that solution would have to be mandated by the FAA and ultimately the Congress. The airlines would never agree among themselves to do any thing like that, no matter how much sense it made. They schedule, for instance, AA, UA and NW flights all at 0800 from ORD to LGA and then fight to be on the runway first and fight to be first to LGA. It would make sense for one to leave at 0800, one at 0810 and one at 0820 but no one wants to be the 0820 departure or even the 0810 one. Take turns you say. HA, not me, they would say.

 

The FAA and the airports don't have the authority to completely solve this problem without the co-operation of the airlines. Congress can enact laws giving the FAA the authority but that just turns the whole issue back into politics, not just business.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Guest novabear22031]

KMEM, you have valid points here. It is time to think about regulation of the airline industry. The free market does not allow for that IMO... every man for himself - as long as they have the money.

 

About my comments on the general aviation industry. I should have made myself more clear - and will still run against your opposition.

 

Based on what I have read from MOST sides on the issue. My take is that if it is a corporate jet using airspace, then the company that owns that jet should pay the price to fly, just as commercial airliners do. It is a cost of doing business. Being a former student pilot, I also respect the role of GA pilots (those in single prop, and smaller dual props) have in keeping interest strong for future pilots.

 

The point being if we as a nation are moving towards "user fees" for everything from our national parks to many other things, then those that can "afford" to pay should pay. Right now the airlines seem to be paying the lions share of the cost to maintain the ATC system.

[+ deej]

>Based on what I have read from MOST sides on the issue. My

>take is that if it is a corporate jet using airspace, then the

>company that owns that jet should pay the price to fly, just

>as commercial airliners do. It is a cost of doing business.

>Being a former student pilot, I also respect the role of GA

>pilots (those in single prop, and smaller dual props) have in

>keeping interest strong for future pilots.

 

I once worked for a company that had corporate jets. If one of the jets was going the direction I was going, I got a ride on it -- at something like 4 times the cost of a commercial flight. (It was worth it. ;-)) At the time it was explained to me that airport fees at major airports were actually higher for the corporate jets, per passenger.

 

That's as it should be. When I needed a team at BWI at a specific time on Monday morning, they were there. It was pricey, but they were there.

 

I think you downplay the role of GA pilots, though. Much like Ham radio operators, they do Herculean work in times of emergency. In New Orleans, post-Katrina, the (volunteer) Ham radio operators were organizing (volunteer) GA pilot flights into the region with emergency supplies (and doing animal rescue on the return flights) long before anyone even realized there was a problem with the FEMA response.

 

GA is far more than just a goad to young pilots. Those guys *contribute* to our society, willingly, freely, and with a smile.

[Guest novabear22031]

>

>I think you downplay the role of GA pilots, though. Much like

>Ham radio operators, they do Herculean work in times of

>emergency. In New Orleans, post-Katrina, the (volunteer) Ham

>radio operators were organizing (volunteer) GA pilot flights

>into the region with emergency supplies (and doing animal

>rescue on the return flights) long before anyone even realized

>there was a problem with the FEMA response.

>

>GA is far more than just a goad to young pilots. Those guys

>*contribute* to our society, willingly, freely, and with a

>smile.

 

Thanks for putting a better spin on GA pilots. As I mentioned I was trying for my GA license so many years ago. I am a big fan of the Civil Air Patrol. GA pilots have their place, and are needed. I will yet again be corrected if I am wrong - but we have a middle tier between the commercial flights and the "true" GA pilots - and that is the corporate jets.

 

We need to encourage GA pilots, at the same point we need to limit corporations using the current rules and not funding their fare share of the ATC burden - while not limiting GA pilots that provide so much in the time of need. A buddy of mine with a C172 does regular "angel" duty flying family members where they are needed.

[Skyyguy]

Not only did the backup system @ LAX not work, the people on duty didn't know how to troubleshoot the problem.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=346

 

They called sprint thinking it was a circuit failure. (It wasn't)

[KMEM]

General aviation is all US aircraft except airlines and the military, so, corporate jets are a part of GA. Corporate jets, relatively speaking, burn a lot of fuel and therefore pay a lot of fuel taxes. They also pay landing fees and other fees whenever they happen to use airline airports.

 

Many corporate jets go just as fast or faster than the airliners and some can go higher, so there is no problem with them mixing in with airlines in the ATC system. In fact, the ATC system is not unusually over burdened except going to/from and in the near vicinity of the major airline airports. In those cases the airports are out of concrete (from airline over scheduling) and ATC cannot cure that problem, only deal with it by creating enough time for all the airliners to be handled.

 

One of the main problems with corporate aircraft user fees is there will be no end to it. First it will be a few dollars for biz jets, then a few more; then, the larger turboprops, then, anyone using any airline airport anywhere, etc. The Feds will have to set up a bureaurocracy to collect the fees. Has any Federal bureaurocracy ever become smaller or known to be efficient? One cost piles onto another.

 

The Feds have been collecting fuel taxes forever. There is a proposal to increase fuel taxes. Every penny of the new collections will go right to the bottom line as the agency is already well established. This is the best way for GA users to pay their way.

 

Best regards,

 

KMEM