Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tarmac Delay Stats, 2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tarmac Delay Stats, 2014

    This was always a hot topic, with some interesting, slightly varied opinions.

    I think "the great year" is probably due to 1) some reductions in air traffic, and 2) good luck with fewer freak weather events (they said cancellations are down too).

    That being said, like the article says, the airlines are a bit more liberal with cancellations, and (JMO) the new fine program has forced the airlines to do some things they should have been doing to prevent extreme, horrid ramp imprisonment.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-say...--finance.html

    US says long tarmac delays fell to lowest level in 2014




    Department of Transportation on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2015 said there were no super-long tarmac delays in December, making 2014 the best year on record for fewest such delays. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

    There were no super-long tarmac delays for airlines in December, making 2014 the best year on record for the fewest such incidents.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation said Tuesday that for all of 2014, there were 30 domestic flights with ground delays topping three hours. Under rules that took effect in 2010, airlines can be fined for such long delays.

    The department said that in the year before the rules were put into place, there were 868 domestic flights stuck on the ground for more than three hours.

    "These tarmac delay rules are meant to protect passengers, and it appears that the airlines have gotten the message," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

    Also, cancelations fell and on-time ratings improved in December compared with the previous year, when an early winter storm snarled traffic in the southern plains states.

    Overall, 75.3 percent of flights within the U.S. arrived on-time in December, down from 80.6 percent in November but up from 68.9 percent in December 2013. A flight is considered on-time if it arrives within 14 minutes of schedule.

    Delta Air Lines topped the ratings, with an 88.9 percent on-time rating. The worst rating, 63.1 percent, was turned in by Envoy Air, which operates many American Eagle flights for American Airlines.

    Canceled flights fell to 1.4 percent from 2.9 percent in December 2013. In April 2010, the Transportation Department enacted penalties of up to $27,500 per passenger if airlines kept a domestic flight on the ground for more than three hours without giving passengers a chance to exit. The following year, the rules were expanded to cover international flights with tarmac delays of more than four hours. There were nine such delays on international flights last year, also the fewest since the rules took effect.

    The airline industry fought the rules, arguing that they would lead to a rash of last-minute cancelations. Rather than risk a fine, airlines increasingly cancel flights well ahead of time if they expect bad weather to cause delays.

    Last month, the department levied what it termed a record, $1.6 million penalty against Southwest Airlines for violating the rules during a January 2014 storm in Chicago. Southwest was fined $600,000 and given credit for $700,000 it spent to compensate passengers and buy new equipment. The department agreed to waive $300,000 of the fine if Southwest doesn't break the rules again in the next year.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Last month, the department levied what it termed a record, $1.6 million penalty against Southwest Airlines for violating the rules during a January 2014 storm in Chicago. Southwest was fined $600,000 and given credit for $700,000 it spent to compensate passengers and buy new equipment. The department agreed to waive $300,000 of the fine if Southwest doesn't break the rules again in the next year.

    this just proves how much of a bunch of suck-asses we have in our government. imagine i get a speeding ticket and go to court, tell the judge, "hey your honor, if i promise not to speed again for a while, will you dismiss the charge, not fine me and not assess points on my license?"

    answer: fat fuckin chance!

    i'd love to hear just ONE valid reason why airlines are treated differently.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, the ticket is predominately your fault, pretty much totally under your control AND supposedly a safety crime against humanity.

      The airline didn't INTEND to strand folks, the weather helped and safety protocols were followed almost good enough for Evan.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        that's a crock. tickets are revenue generators. nothing more. safety has NOTHING to do with it.

        tarmac delays are 99.9% airline fault. they are too cheap and it's all about THEIR profits NOT our comfort or security. the other .01% is on the side of the government being too stupid and stubborn to upgrade our atc system

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
          that's a crock. tickets are revenue generators. nothing more. safety has NOTHING to do with it.
          Oh, but the law is the law and you can simply not speed...

          I do like those arguments when someone says, "I'm fine with speed traps and red light cameras...just send the money directly the school system to prove it's not a cash grab for the town budget".

          ...crickets chirping...

          (...and don't make absolute statements- speed is a factor in safety )
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            10 years ago, the speed limit on most non-urban highways in florida was 55. now it's up to 70. 10 years ago if you were driving 70 you would get a ticket if caught. safety?

            p.s. the roads have not changed, and neither for that matter, has the accident rate.

            but i see your point. AND if what you say is true, SWA should have been required to pay the full fine, as i'm pretty damn sure the law does not say they get credit for pax compensation...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              [speed] tickets are revenue generators. nothing more. safety has NOTHING to do with it.
              Really?

              If there were no speed limits, or they were not enforced, which is the same:
              - Would people go (1) faster, (2) slower or (3) equally fast than now on average?
              - Would there be (1) more, (2) fewer or (3) equal rate of accidents?
              - Would the average consequence of each accident be (1) worse, (2) better or (3) equal than now?

              The answer is 1-1-1.

              Not saying that speeding tickets are not revenue generators. But to say that safety has nothing to do with it?

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                10 years ago, the speed limit on most non-urban highways in florida was 55. now it's up to 70. 10 years ago if you were driving 70 you would get a ticket if caught. safety?

                p.s. the roads have not changed, and neither for that matter, has the accident rate.

                but i see your point. AND if what you say is true, SWA should have been required to pay the full fine, as i'm pretty damn sure the law does not say they get credit for pax compensation...
                the one thing that hast changed is the safety of new cars. Now that doesn't mean they should increase the limit, half of the newest cars purchased will be purchased a few years down the road.

                But about airlines, it all has to do with the fact that weather isn't their fault. It is not preventableso they can legally strand passengers and not put them up. In fact, I was talking to a westjet gate agent on a stormy day and she said she learned in training that most airlines will not compensate passengers who are stranded due to nature. They are given the option to change their flight on the date of the weather free of charge. If they risk it then it is their fault, not the airlines, that they chose to try anyways instead of rebooking on another day
                I'm the guy... Porter Guy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by porter guy View Post
                  But about airlines, it all has to do with the fact that weather isn't their fault. It is not preventable so.
                  You are new to this topic.

                  We're not talking weather and cancellations.

                  We are talking about the nasty melt downs where they load planes and move them from the gate and the passengers wind up imprisoned for 4 to 8, or 12 hours, within sight of the gate on planes with no food, and overflowing toilets.

                  This results from the airlines loading folks up, and moving them away from the gate- hoping the planes will be able to fly (and they can save money).

                  Or planes that should not have taken off from elsewhere, come in and land and there's no gates for unloading.

                  Tee Vee has made some rants- and I have tended to agree that it's gross cheapness and gross negligence that there is no contingency plan to assure that this doesn't happen. When it happens, the airlines say there's no way to bring planes to a gate and unload them, they say there's no way to get a set of steps and a bus out to the planes, no way to let the people walk a couple hundred feet back to the terminal for food, water, or restrooms.

                  A few short years ago, this was happening WAY too often.

                  I'll give the airlines an extremely tiny bit of slack- Sure, they tried to plan so this didn't happen and sure, they want to try and get you there, but when a couple thousand people are imprisoned within sight of the terminal and the toilets are over flowing, this is happening a couple of times a year and they refuse to spend a few bucks to move empty planes to a far taxiway or closed runway so they can unload folks or load planes that won't be able to take off or send fights that won't have a gate when they land or Airline X won't let Airline Y borrow a gate...no that's not OK.

                  One of the more amazing instances was Austin Texas in the summer when there were severe storms at Dallas. Lot's of planes were diverted to Austin but they didn't go to gates and kept folks on the plane. To trap folks in planes and NOT let them off because then they'll have to refund passengers...but if we can get them to DFW then we DO get paid...It would have been Soooo easy to have a few sets of steps and let folks walk 200 feet across the ramp!

                  So, the US government imposed a new fine system...keep someone trapped on the ramp for 4 hours- you pay a big fine unless there's a REALLY DANG GOOD excuse.

                  There have been two results: 1) Airlines have been a bit quicker to "cancel all flights" in advance of a snowstorm (instead of waiting for a meltdown). 2) There have been very few new instances of mass stranding since the threat of fines.

                  I generally like to keep the government out of things, but based on what was happening before and the very significant reductions in mass imprisonment, since the regs, it seems this was a good deal. And maybe those 'early cancellations' are something they should have been doing all along?

                  No, they can't control the weather, but the weatherman usually told them the storm was coming, and the airline chooses to load the planes and the airline choose to not have adequate contingency plans so they aren't innocent.

                  And TeeVee is right- the way SWA weaseled out of ALL fines is something an average citizen isn't going to be able to do.

                  I do not know many details of this SWA incident...A snowstorm at Midway...It's certainly an active hub with lots planes coming in and out of well used gates...If the airline is slow to realize that there's a problem building, it's how it happens.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    imagine i get a speeding ticket and go to court, tell the judge, "hey your honor, if i promise not to speed again for a while, will you dismiss the charge, not fine me and not assess points on my license?"

                    answer: fat fuckin chance!

                    i'd love to hear just ONE valid reason why airlines are treated differently.
                    I got a speeding ticket two years ago (50 in a 35--on a country road. Back home in Montana the speed limit on that road would have been 65, but this is Texas and the rules are different here...). Anyway, I got the speeding ticket--my first, by the way--and the cop said if I take an online defensive driving course ($125) and pay a small fine to the county, and don't get caught speeding for a year, they'll take the ticket off my driving record.
                    The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      Really?

                      If there were no speed limits, or they were not enforced, which is the same:
                      - Would people go (1) faster, (2) slower or (3) equally fast than now on average?
                      - Would there be (1) more, (2) fewer or (3) equal rate of accidents?
                      - Would the average consequence of each accident be (1) worse, (2) better or (3) equal than now?

                      The answer is 1-1-1.

                      Not saying that speeding tickets are not revenue generators. But to say that safety has nothing to do with it?
                      wrong wrong and wrong. or at least you have no evidence to prove wht you posit. when the limits were 55 there were NOT fewer accidents than there are now even in places where the limit is 75--36% FASTER.

                      having spent 15 years as a paramedic i learned a lot about accidents. degree of injury is not always associated with speed. some of the most horrific things i saw were in lower speed collisions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        wrong wrong and wrong. or at least you have no evidence to prove wht you posit. when the limits were 55 there were NOT fewer accidents than there are now even in places where the limit is 75--36% FASTER.

                        having spent 15 years as a paramedic i learned a lot about accidents. degree of injury is not always associated with speed. some of the most horrific things i saw were in lower speed collisions.
                        I might be wrong (or unable to prove me right) in #2.

                        I am definitively correct in #1 and #3.

                        If there were no speed limits, people would go faster on average. proof is how many people drives around the speed limit, and when the speed limit changes (either way) they still drive around the speed limit. I know that I would drive faster than the current limit in some zones if the limit was higher or there was no limit.

                        And what kind of proof is "degree of injury is not always associated with speed. some of the most horrific things i saw were in lower speed collisions"? Yea, sure. My grandfather died at 99 and he smoked 3 packs per day since he was 14. Proof that cigarettes are not bad for health.

                        having spent 15 years as a paramedic and learned a lot about accidents, you KNOW that the higher the speed the higher the chances that someone gets hurt, badly hurt, or dead. And the fact that I can drive over the head of someone at 1 MPH in reverse and squeeze his brains through his nose is not proof against that.

                        And going to #2, the reason is that road and car characteristics improved too. At 75 MPH it takes about twice as long to stop than from 55 MPH. And that means that you will not be able to stop before hitting the dear in some cases that you would have been able to, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Now, 20 years ago you had a car without ABS and slamming the breaks to avoid the deer meant losing control and running down the cliff.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is everyone on this forum (but me) a paramedic?

                          Brian.
                          ATL Crew
                          TeeVee
                          Gabe
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Is everyone on this forum (but me) a paramedic?

                            Brian.
                            ATL Crew
                            TeeVee
                            Gabe
                            Me?

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              ...having spent 15 years as a paramedic and learned a lot about accidents...
                              I read too fast...

                              When you begin the sentence Gabriel is talking...

                              Using fundamental reading, it seemed that "Gabriel" was the noun.

                              But, when I read the word AFTER "accidents" I see that the Noun is "You".

                              ...and had to further infer context that the true noun is Tee Vee.

                              There's something to be said for not being too hurried in selecting your nouns nor which fuel cutoff to use.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X