neo and avek,

The times are only estimates by ATC. Those translate into reality about 3/4 of the time, from my experience.

And weather delays do not count in the ontime performance rankings.

-------

But on another level, there is a degree of fault with the airlines. They run small planes at high frequencies. In the more congested areas, that causes significant backups when the slightest thing goes wrong. It's like how a freeway can run at capacity, but if someone is stalled or there's a collision or the sun suddenly hits drivers in their eyes, everything breaks down and you have traffic jams.

Freeways would transport more people if they had more people per vehicle. The same applies to the runways and airspace. Naturally, it doesn't apply to the other side of the airport (checkin, boarding areas, etc.).

The fact is, airlines blaming the FAA for the delays is like people blaming the lack of freeway lanes for traffic jams. Study after study has shown that increasing the number of lanes only increases the number of cars, but has no real impact (other than short-term) at eliminating traffic congestion. The same applies to air traffic. If the FAA allows for more capacity, it will be filled by higher frequency of smaller aircraft. That's already been shown repeatedly as well.

It's time to stop that insanity, IMO. I'd far prefer that there be slot regulations at the airports than to have what we have today. And slots shouldn't be set up for 100% capacity, either. There needs to be breathing room so that weather doesn't cause multi-hour delays all the time. SFO, for example, should be set up for an average of about 45 flights per hour...maybe a little less. The delays would nearly disappear with that approach. At a cost to the airport and taxpayers of zero.

------------------
Michael

hmflyer,

I assume you are talking to me, but I really cannot comprehend your statement. I think you are saying that I would be upset if my flight was cancelled due to some mandatory time limit imposed on delayed flights. If this is the case, it depends on how long this time limit would be. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't have a problem with my four hour delay, and I am glad CO did not cancel the flight because of the four hour delay. Do I think that CO should have cancelled the flight if the delay was projected for say eight or more hours - yes.

neo_781: I can't find it anywhere in the thread so far, and I'd be interested in hearing: how were the passengers treated while on the plane? Did CO meet the "Customers First" commitment? (Fed and watered, kept updated with latest status, allowed to use the lavs?)

Definitely a complicated issue. I appreciate everyone's contributions posted above.

dgolds:

The way I understand it the flight crew was professional. They served peanuts and drinks after about two hours and the pilot did make anouncements. So in one respect, they did follow part of their Customer First initiative.

Nobody's really addressed it but I do feel airlines are responsible for weather delays. Not in the sense that they can control the sky, just that they can handle things better. IMO there is no justification in keeping passengers cooped up for 6 hours. I can read a weather map well enough to see if the storm is clearing or not.

We, the flying public, (and myself included) tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the airlines. In fact, if you were buying any other product, would you stand for this kind of treatment? Me ... I wouldn't.

I hate long delays as much as anyone.

However, I don't want the airline to compromise on safety.

If one looks at the incredible safety record
of US based airlines, it is a most remarkable record.

Part of the reason for such a safety record is caution about bad weather situations, I'd
rather arrive 6 hrs late and grumpy then arrive "on-time" and in a box and no longer have the ability to complain.

Given the safety record, I'll cut the airlines a great deal of slack.

That said, they still need to treat passengers with respect and courtesy.

We have to keep in mind that in the last 5 years, there have been only 12 fatal incidents involving Commercial US airlines.

Given the number of flights per day, that is a fantastic record.

Over the past several years things have changed. Maybe its more flights, but it never happened that people were stuck on a plane for hours. Recently I boarded a NW flight in DTW for a trip to PHL at 3PM. We sat at the gate for 1/2 hour because of "weather approaching the Eastern Seaboard". We then sat in the bull pen until 5:45 when we pulled back into the gate. At this point we were told the flight was cancelled. There were a few updates along the way, but never anything concrete. There were no flights home that night so I checked into a brand new Hilton Garden Inn (Very nice!). I turned on the Weather Channel only to see that the "weather approaching the Eastern Seaboard" arrived at about 9PM. Yet I was on the plane at 3PM. While I can't put my finger on it, something seems very wrong.

txflyer,

Actually the response was directed towards AVEK00. That person wrote the flights should be cancelled after a certain amount of time.

I disagree. The airlines can run the flights as late as they want. Keep in mind that a flight cancelled tonight might result in a flight cancelled tomorrow. If it is a long delay, you have the option of changing your flight plans, I can't imagine an airline, and certainly not CO not allowing you to do so. However other people may want to take the flight no matter how delayed.

In no way did I mean to suggest that safety shold be compromised in any way. Rather, my plan would prevent airlines from keeping pax trapped aboard airplanes for obscene and inhumane lengths of time under unpleasant conditions for the "wishful thinking" that the weather, etc. could clear up at any moment, even though experience has proven otherwise.

It's a catch 22 for the airlines. Suppose they cancelled flights after a given period of time. Then passengers get to disembark but are stuck at their point of origination, possibly without a place to stay, and then perhaps fighting to get to their destination because everyone else who had flights cancelled is now trying to get to the same place as soon as possible.

Six hours on a plane with access to toilets and drinks is unpleasant for sure, and I wouldn't want to experience it, but hardly what I would call "obscene and inhumane conditions." Now without toilets or water, that's inhumane - and NW's poor treatment of pax last winter at DTW was one of the major factors spurring on Customers First.

It becomes inhumane when the airline clearly knew or could have relaibly forecasted the inevitability of losing on-board delays.

Look at it this way: the airlines can, with all variables considered and to a scary degree of accuracy, predict how many seats to sell on a flight, and at what price, but act clueless when it comes to delays that their own scheduling practices exacerbate...

avek00

What makes you think that the airlines should be any better at forecasting weather than the National Weather Service?