If I understand correctly, a lot of flight cancellations are caused by the airlines themselves in their zeal to be competitive. Some (most?) airlines publish schedules containing more flights than they can possibly operate, given the number of aircraft, crew, gates/slots they actually have. The result is that until the very day of the flight, the hapless passenger is left wondering whether his/her flight will fly or be cancelled. And if it is cancelled, how long the delay will be, whether connections will be missed, and what kind of miserable seat he/she will be crammed into on the substitute flight(s).

I call this a "shell game." It is particularly observable on the Shuttle routes operated by United Airlines up and down the West Coast, on which I have been victimized by delays and cancellations numerous times. Of course, the airlines want you to believe that cancellations are usually attributable to factors beyond their control, such as weather, or at least, to equipment problems, computer glitches, or the like. But what about the basic problem of the airlines' knowingly overscheduling flights? The poor customer receives NO compensation of any kind for this, and the airlines never acknowledge how they themselves are causing the problem! I feel this is a consumer ripoff and that if the airlines don't cut it out, then better passenger protection legislation is needed.

What do you think?

Kathy

I could not comment on flights on high frequency shuttle routes in the US, however in the international arena I can tell you that this is not the case. However, airlines plan to use their aircraft as much as possible taking in to account parameters such as maintenance, cleaning and catering. There are any number of events which can cause delays and often do. However, if all runs smoothly there are generally no cancellations.

Of course there are also "economical" reasons for cancelling flights. If there are only three people on a flight, it may get cancelled. The airline might figure that it would be cheaper to reprotect the passengers on other airlines....that does happen and it's a commercial decision.

The major airlines never publish routes that they know they are unable to operate. I am not familiar with your particular routes, but I suspect you would see all the flights operate on a day when weather or restrictions are not a factor.

If delay programs are in effect, the airlines are free to use "their" slots in whatever way they see fit. So they may cancel a flight at, say, 25% capacity in order for the subsequent flight to depart on time.

Yet another 'compensation' seeker - when did you last get 'compensation' from your doctor when you sat in the waiting room for hours because s/he was 'running late'

Life does not always go the way you want it to, get over it.

To yyz-den:

I was asking for opinions and/or facts on the airlines' practices, NOT for flames!

I consider your post to be highly offensive and inappropriate. I don't believe that personal attacks such as this are consistent with the spirit of this forum.

Or (not having seen any of your other posts) do you just make a practice of attacking other posters, without providing any useful or relevant information, experience, or background?

Kathy

Nope, have posted some useful info (I think), just me and a bunch of other folks getting tired of the 'something for nothing' crowd.

As in, 'I'm really inconvenienced by this, but if you throw me some money or other 'compensation' everything will be OK'

As I said before, sometimes life does not unfold the way we would like, but really, do we have to be compensated for every little thing??

By the way, I was not flaming you, you asked for opinions, you got mine - take it or leave it.

As for experience, I have 115,000 miles this year so far, I guess I have had my share of delays, mechanicals, and other hassles - but hey, life is not perfect. When I can walk across Lake Ontario, maybe my expectations will be raised, but I don't expect that anytime soon.

edited for really bad spelling

[This message has been edited by yyz-den (edited 08-25-2001).]

[This message has been edited by yyz-den (edited 08-25-2001).]

To yyz-den:

The implication of your posts is, it appears, that nobody should complain about airline cancellations or delays, nor should they discuss causes of those delays. At least that seems to be the subtext.

You say, "Life does not always go the way you want it to, get over it." That is not only offensive, it is also a catch-all expression that could be used in response to ANY complaint about ANYTHING, no matter how justified! (And it could boomerang in the face of the person who says it, when they have a complaint about something.)

I don't see anything useful in your two posts, just someone who seems to be on the attack and looking to throw flames.

Kathy

Kathy:

Having re-read that part of my initial post, I concede that it may have come over as somewhat offensive - that is one of the dangers of text only - and I don't use emoticons because I feel that they usually detract from the content of the message.

Anyway, if you are truly offended, I offer an apology, but I do not apologize for the sentiment of the post, and I stand by my assertion that society is far to 'compensation' oriented.

There is no 'subtext' to either of my posts, what you see is what you get. Nowhere in either post have I suggested that one should not complain if service is not up to par.

What I do suggest, however, is that constructive criticism and a quiet complaint rather than a rant, usually go a lot further toward fixing a problem than does a demand or expectation of compensation.

The US is a particularly litigious society, and the results of that are very destructive. My point is that compensation seldom solves problems, merely masks them, and temporarily mollifies the aggrieved.

By the way, I do not believe that airlines 'schedule' more flights than can be accomodated by ATC or their own staff. I do believe, however, that the smaller airlines, and the regionals of the major airlines, do 'consolidate' when loadings are light and they have another departure in an hour or so.

One final point, Aircrew are human, they sometimes get sick, aircraft are mechanical, they sometimes break. I would rather be delayed on the ground waiting for a replacement crew, than have a pilot that has any doubt about his/her health take the flight for the sake of expediency(incidentally the pilot has no choice but to ground him/her-self according to the FAR's). I would also rather have the machine fixed than risk a mechanical in the air. My 'compensation' for those delays is 'peace of mind'.

Hope that clears up my position, once again it was not my intention to flame you, you have my apology for any offence you may have taken.

Kathy -

I suggest you ignore the postings of yyz-den. This is not the first time this individual has disrupted a perfectly legitimate question such as yours with posts such as these. The best way to deal with people like this is to ignore them.

Regarding your original question, you are absolutely correct that airlines have schedules that cannot be met with available equipment. At the present time, DL is probably the worst offender, though it may not be entirely their fault. Apparently, they have about 15 757s with major engine problems that simply cannot fly. Several DL employees, including both pilots and CSRs have told me it is Russian roulette with 757 flights.

On a recent trip from PHL to SJC via ATL, DL first cancelled my PHL/ATL flight and then cancelled the ATL/SJC flight. The PHL/ATL was not a 757, but DL has scheduled hourly service as a competitive tool vs AirTran, and there is simply not enough traffic to support this (told to me by a DL pilot).

You are also correct about no compensation - when my PHL/ATL flight was cancelled, they just put me on the next one, and when the ATL/SJC flight was cancelled, I was put on am ATL/SFO flight with an offer to wait for about an hour at SFO until a shuttle bus would take me back to SJC.

[This message has been edited by JerryFF (edited 08-26-2001).]

Hmmmm.... I might agree with you if you're referring to a temporary situation. That simply sounds like clumsy management on Delta's part.

However, I think that the original contention was that one of the Majors, as a matter of corporate policy, published a schedule that could never be fully executed given the airline's staffing and/or equipment profile. I strongly doubt this.

The Regionals and Air Taxis are another case altogether. They are not above cancelling flights due to low loads.

I have seen several airlines cancel flights due to empty planes. An interesting encounter happened with British Airways.

BA had a flight that was very empty. So they announced the plane had broke down. They then said they would re-book all the passengers. One person on the plane suspected their was no malfunction, and stated that he would wait, as he was in no hurry. End result was they flew that one passenger alone on the plane. Ever since BA has never cancelled a flight due to occupancy.

I don't remeber all the details, but I know it was a flight from NY to London on a 747.

relaxedPax

There's no doubt that airlines will cancel and consolidate flights when the planes are not going to be full enough to suit them. (Though they seem to want to disguise this as "mechanical," "weather," or other problem; they never seem to admit openly that "it won't be economic for us to operate a half-empty flight." Why don't they just say it?)

But what about the original question of whether the published schedule is simply impossible to execute, given the staff, equipment, gates/slots, and whatever other resources are needed?

Also, the "compensation" idea was not merely suggested as a "band-aid," but as something that might provide incentive for airlines to improve. And it should be remembered that the airlines are an "oligopoly," and in some markets, close to a monopoly. They wield enormous power vis-a-vis the customer. Some of the litigiousness of our society may be a reflection of our collective frustration at the power of huge corporations and our seeming helplessness to get decent treatment from them.

Kathy

(To yyz-den: Apology accepted.)