If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   You're going to be fined $27,500 per passenger for planes running later than 3 hours. Do you: a) improve service, b) suck it up and pay, or c) cancel flights at 2 hrs 59 minutes?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 76
    More: Asinine, United States Department of Transportation, largest airlines, Continental Airlines, good arguments, United Airlines, CEO, Mumbai, flights  
•       •       •

3987 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Mar 2010 at 8:07 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-09 05:23:14 PM  
Well yeah, of course cancel, if you were in charge wouldn't you?

I mean yeah improve service, but even the best of service can get handed a smack down my mother nature or random failure
 
2010-03-09 05:37:02 PM  
I'd do the same thing. You fine me for being late? fark if I even show up.
 
2010-03-09 05:39:17 PM  
How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac?
 
2010-03-09 05:49:10 PM  
The problem here is making the passengers sit on the farking plane on the tarmac for many hours on end. That's inexcusable. Airlines, airport facilities... fix that shiat. It's bullshiat to put paying customers through it. If it's going to be that delayed, get people the fark off the plane.
 
2010-03-09 06:05:32 PM  
How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac?,,

Since my taxes started propping up horribly run airlines with insane federal protections.
 
2010-03-09 06:07:57 PM  
Why is it so hard to let people off the plane? If it were any other industry you'd get riots over crap like that.
 
2010-03-09 06:10:10 PM  
Yet another grand idea brought forth from the bowels of government that has gone to shiat.
 
2010-03-09 08:06:40 PM  
I'd say I'd rather be let off a plane and have the flight canceled after 3 hours rather than sit there and have the flight take off after 9 hours. Hardly the ideal, here, but it's an improvement.
 
2010-03-09 08:12:11 PM  
bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac much strychnine is in our hot dogs?

FTFY.

Also: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
 
2010-03-09 08:21:15 PM  
So I won't be flying Continental. Thanks for the heads-up, petulent CEO!
 
2010-03-09 08:24:41 PM  
Good call on the part of the CEO. Drive, you tards.
 
2010-03-09 08:24:58 PM  
[OBVIOUS] tag out to dinner?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-03-09 08:32:12 PM  
I would rather be sent back to the terminal than sit overnight in an airplane gradually drowning in my and my fellow passengers' waste.
 
2010-03-09 08:35:48 PM  
Good for them! God knows that customers just get in the way of profitability.

.
 
2010-03-09 08:41:00 PM  
On teh face of it, this is a rather common sense reaction on behalf of the CEO.

Until you realize that it's Continental, who seems to have a major issue with the concept of customer service, maintenance, and scheduling over the past few years.

/I used to rank them with Northwest until they were bought out
//most US carriers suck at this point, but a few have gone to great lengths to lower the bar.
 
2010-03-09 08:44:20 PM  
SusanIvanova: I'd say I'd rather be let off a plane and have the flight canceled after 3 hours rather than sit there and have the flight take off after 9 hours. Hardly the ideal, here, but it's an improvement.

THIS.

Note to self... don't fly Continental... evar
 
2010-03-09 08:46:18 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Yet another grand idea brought forth from the bowels of government that has gone to shiat.

Next time you're confined on a plane on the tarmac for 12+ hours drop me a line. Till then STFU and go back to digging ditches.
 
2010-03-09 08:46:19 PM  
And this would be why I don't fly Continental. That, and they've sucked for years now.
 
2010-03-09 08:48:10 PM  
Flight canceled?, does that mean I can go back to the terminal, get something to eat, stretch my legs, go to the (overpriced) bar or would you rather me sit in that seat for 6 hours with my bad hip and worsening attitude.
 
2010-03-09 08:53:31 PM  
Kanemano: Flight canceled?, does that mean I can go back to the terminal, get something to eat, stretch my legs, go to the (overpriced) bar or would you rather me sit in that seat for 6 hours with my bad hip and worsening attitude.

While in that scenario, being allowed to deplane in 3 hours beats the alternative of waiting double that time on the tarmac, it does seem like an airline would be acting in bad faith if they inconvenience their customers just long enough so they don't get a fine. I would hope that if they notice after an hour or so that the delay will be more than 3 hours they cancel the flight preemptively and go ahead and let the passengers deplane.
 
2010-03-09 08:55:57 PM  
T-Luv: Kanemano: Flight canceled?, does that mean I can go back to the terminal, get something to eat, stretch my legs, go to the (overpriced) bar or would you rather me sit in that seat for 6 hours with my bad hip and worsening attitude.

While in that scenario, being allowed to deplane in 3 hours beats the alternative of waiting double that time on the tarmac, it does seem like an airline would be acting in bad faith if they inconvenience their customers just long enough so they don't get a fine. I would hope that if they notice after an hour or so that the delay will be more than 3 hours they cancel the flight preemptively and go ahead and let the passengers deplane.


Oh, and reversely, if they have kept passengers on the runway for 2 and a half hours and know they can get the plane moving but it will be another 45 minutes, they should not cancel that flight just to save money. I think that would also be a bad faith practice that many unscrupulous airlines might initiate.
 
2010-03-09 09:01:15 PM  
As someone who had to sit on the tarmac at JFK for over five hours, in a tiny Airbus, with the doors closed, taking on no fresh air, slowly suffocating from CO2 poisoning while being cramped to the point of actual physical injury, just so I could fly non-stop to PDX, I'm fine with them flatly canceling the flight.

They will either rebook or refund me for doing so (under penalty of death of their CEO), but hey, anything is better than dying in a tiny shiatcan of an airplane due to hypoxia.

Airlines are publicly-funded organizations. The government gets to make the rules. Don't like it, stop taking our money and try to make a profit on your own.

/Never travel anymore because I refuse to fly
//And I *love* flying :(
 
2010-03-09 09:15:24 PM  
Simple solution: Introduce the same fine if the passengers have boarded, and the flight is canceled for arbitrary reasons.
 
2010-03-09 09:16:05 PM  
T-Luv: T-Luv: Kanemano: Flight canceled?, does that mean I can go back to the terminal, get something to eat, stretch my legs, go to the (overpriced) bar or would you rather me sit in that seat for 6 hours with my bad hip and worsening attitude.

While in that scenario, being allowed to deplane in 3 hours beats the alternative of waiting double that time on the tarmac, it does seem like an airline would be acting in bad faith if they inconvenience their customers just long enough so they don't get a fine. I would hope that if they notice after an hour or so that the delay will be more than 3 hours they cancel the flight preemptively and go ahead and let the passengers deplane.

Oh, and reversely, if they have kept passengers on the runway for 2 and a half hours and know they can get the plane moving but it will be another 45 minutes, they should not cancel that flight just to save money. I think that would also be a bad faith practice that many unscrupulous airlines might initiate.


That's the trick, though, isn't it? Every flight I've been on that had a serious delay on the tarmac was the result of airport control telling them, "you might get clearance in 10 minutes, or it might be another hour. We'll let you know." Even if you decide to cancel the flight and go back to the gate, how do you know a gate will be available for you?

I'm all for ranting at airlines when it's warranted, but there are a few more things in the mix than an airline saying, "yeah, push that plane back and let it sit there burning fuel and flight crew hours just for the hell of it".
 
2010-03-09 09:24:44 PM  
hell, I'd do the same thing after reading the article.
 
2010-03-09 09:32:18 PM  
Whatever costs the least amount of money.

If my customers are a bunch of imbeciles who will endlessly tolerate shiat like option C.... well.....
 
2010-03-09 09:43:20 PM  
Was there really not one single person sitting in the room when they came up with this rule that thought this would happen? Really?
 
2010-03-09 09:55:44 PM  
SusanIvanova: bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac much strychnine is in our hot dogs?

FTFY.

Also: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"


so more or less, by your interpretation, the Constitution permits the Federal Government to do pretty much everything imaginable?
 
2010-03-09 09:58:52 PM  
bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac?

Since about the time some airline decided it was a good idea to let its passengers sit in a plane with no beverage service for 4 hours on a Minneapolis runway.
 
2010-03-09 09:59:40 PM  
New Rule:

Once passengers have been seated on a flight, the flight cannot be canceled, only delayed (with delays not to exceed 48 hours except for a strictly defined list of exceptions, e.g. aircraft damage, state of emergency, severe weather event).

Therefore, after 3 hours they must be allowed to disembark AND they can't get out of it by "canceling" the flight.
 
2010-03-09 10:05:20 PM  
The CEO that said this is the same CEO that will give up his salary until the company starts to turn a profit. It's not about screwing passengers, it's about saving $2m to $4m in fines that could be avoided by canceling the flight.

And for those who think that Airlines are publicly funded -- not really. But on every ticket a passenger buys there are a slew of taxes that covers the cost of the air traffic system, including ticket taxes, segment taxes, international arrival and departure taxes, security fees, and passenger facility charge taxes. For more information go to MIT's Airline Ticket Tax Project. The interesting thing is that the effective ticket tax has continued to go up while base fares have decreased.
 
2010-03-09 10:26:41 PM  
minoridiot: The interesting thing is that the effective ticket tax has continued to go up while base fares have decreased.

Another case of misinformation in the form of statistics. The taxes and fees have remained level throughout the period reported. The airlines are lowering their prices (while raising their own add-ons). That doesn't mean that the cost of the services the taxes and fees cover is going down, so they remain the same. Yet the graph considers this an "increase" in the pseudo-indicator they call effective tax rate? I call bullshart.

/Used to travel for business.
//Quit the job so I can stay home.
///Licensed private pilot, loves flying.
 
2010-03-09 10:46:22 PM  
SusanIvanova: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

What is not covered under the commerce clause?
 
2010-03-09 10:51:22 PM  
My question is, if an airline should happen to go over, how much of that money does the passenger get?

$27,500 to sit on a plane for 3 hours and one minute, sign me the fark up.
 
2010-03-09 10:53:07 PM  
I don't see how this is at all surprising.
 
2010-03-09 11:03:37 PM  
bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac?

The government made up the "security" regulations that don't allow passengers to debark and go back into the airport in case of such delays?
 
2010-03-09 11:05:13 PM  
bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac?

How is airline security either?
 
2010-03-09 11:16:21 PM  
Will Kevin Smith count as 2 passangers?
 
2010-03-09 11:18:09 PM  
Every airport that can take jets has stairs on wheels. You don't have to use the fancy jetway.
 
2010-03-09 11:23:25 PM  
Listerine: SusanIvanova: bberg: How exactly is it the government's business how long passengers sit on the tarmac much strychnine is in our hot dogs?

FTFY.

Also: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

so more or less, by your interpretation, the Constitution permits the Federal Government to do pretty much everything imaginable?


His interpretation is irrelevant, but the Supreme Court has held that congress has the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce. That includes highways, railroads, rivers, and even airplanes. Congress could make pretty much any law related to any channel of interstate commerce and they will be afforded significant deference from the Supreme Court.

As held in the Wickard case, even when stuff won't ever make it into interstate commerce, such as home grown grain, congress can still regulate that on the basis that when you grow your own grain, you are not buying any grain from interstate commerce, and thus having an impact on interstate commerce and the price of grain throughout the nation. The commerce clause gives congress a substantial amount of power under the current Supreme Court interpretations....
 
2010-03-09 11:35:24 PM  
Commerce Clause vs. Tenthers steel cage death match starting NOW, call your cable provider for instant PPV access!
 
2010-03-09 11:44:42 PM  
"Carriers have it within their power to schedule their flights more realistically, to have spare aircraft and crews available to avoid cancellations" and to rebook passengers when there are cancellations, Mosley said.

This is absolutely true; airlines also have it within their power to charge prices that actually allow that level of service.

The thing is, consumers will still decide which ticket to buy entirely based on cost. So Mr. Consumer-friendly Airline CEO who decides to position spare planes and spare crews, intentionally operating at less than capacity all the time, is going to get all manner of nasty things done to him by his shareholders when the 'next month's ticket revenue will pay for today's fuel' low-cost carrier next door offers prices that force Mr. Consumer-friendly Airline CEO's operation to either lose money in copious amounts, close up shop or change the business model.

Look folks, you get what you pay for. The economics of pleasant and reliable air travel don't compete with what you see today. Not even close.
 
2010-03-10 12:02:56 AM  
Since it's pretty obvious that cancellation is what will happen rather than an airline incurring fines of this magnitude, I have to conclude that the government knew that this would be the result and intended it.
 
2010-03-10 12:28:12 AM  
This seems like a great idea to me. 99.999% of the time if I'm going to be stuck on the tarmac for three hours or more I'd much rather just have the flight canceled so I can work on getting a rebooking, or at least grab some food and go to the bathroom.

Sitting on the tarmac for an extended period is horrible. Hell, a flight i took last week we were sitting out there for a half hour because of congestion at our destination airport and I was ready to go crazy. Sitting in a holding cell would be preferable to a 9 hour tarmac delay. At least there you can get up and walk around.
 
2010-03-10 12:57:34 AM  
Ah, the law of unintended consequences, alive and well in every government regulation.
 
2010-03-10 01:20:48 AM  
costermonger: "Carriers have it within their power to schedule their flights more realistically, to have spare aircraft and crews available to avoid cancellations" and to rebook passengers when there are cancellations, Mosley said.

This is absolutely true; airlines also have it within their power to charge prices that actually allow that level of service.

The thing is, consumers will still decide which ticket to buy entirely based on cost. So Mr. Consumer-friendly Airline CEO who decides to position spare planes and spare crews, intentionally operating at less than capacity all the time, is going to get all manner of nasty things done to him by his shareholders when the 'next month's ticket revenue will pay for today's fuel' low-cost carrier next door offers prices that force Mr. Consumer-friendly Airline CEO's operation to either lose money in copious amounts, close up shop or change the business model.

Look folks, you get what you pay for. The economics of pleasant and reliable air travel don't compete with what you see today. Not even close.


For half a year, until people stop flying the low-cost carrier when 25% of their flights are canceled.

I defy you to find anyone that flies more than once a year and doesn't have an airline they absolutely refuse to fly (thanks United!) unless absolutely forced. Even if it's $50 more, I'd rather fly JetBlue, have a nice flight, and be confident that I'll have a nice trip (or as nice as possible for a red-eye), then fly American and be treated like cattle.
 
2010-03-10 01:38:03 AM  
Occam's Nailfile: Ah, the law of unintended consequences, alive and well in every government regulation.

I came to say something like this...
...Ah what the hell. Didn't think that cunning plan all the way through, did ya, gub'mint!?

/shakes tiny impotent fist.
 
2010-03-10 01:59:56 AM  
If air traffic control were the problem the rate of flight delays would not vary very much across the airlines. Only thing is the rate varies a good deal.
 
2010-03-10 03:59:18 AM  
FTA: Passengers, he [Continental CEO Jeff Smisek] said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

With that kind of attitude, GTFO of the air carrier business. That's a goddamn threat, go to hell. The passengers are secondary to him.
 
2010-03-10 07:09:19 AM  
2wolves: Next time you're confined on a plane on the tarmac for 12+ hours drop me a line.

You know... a better solution would be to require the airlines to deplane the passengers after 3 hours instead of fining the ever loving shiat out of them and causing the airlines to react in this fashion.

2wolves: Till then STFU and go back to digging ditches.

What the fark?
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report