Slashdot Mirror
Why Airlines Make Flights Longer On Purpose (bbc.com)
dryriver shares a report from the BBC: In the 1960s it took five hours to fly from New York to Los Angeles, and just 45 minutes to hop from New York to Washington, DC. Today, these same flights now take six-plus hours and 75 minutes respectively, although the airports haven't moved further apart. It's called "schedule creep," or padding. And it's a secret the airlines don't want you to know about, especially given the spillover effects for the environment. Padding is the extra time airlines allow themselves to fly from A to B. Because these flights were consistently late, airlines have now baked delays experienced for decades into their schedules instead of improving operations.
"On average, over 30% of all flights arrive more than 15 minutes late every day despite padding," says Captain Michael Baiada, president of aviation consultancy ATH Group citing the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. The figure used to be 40% but padding -- not operational improvements -- boosted on-time arrival rates. 'By padding, airlines are gaming the system to fool you." He says if instead airlines tackled operational issues, customers would directly benefit. "Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2 which means if airline efficiency goes up, costs go down, benefitting both the environment and fares."
"On average, over 30% of all flights arrive more than 15 minutes late every day despite padding," says Captain Michael Baiada, president of aviation consultancy ATH Group citing the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. The figure used to be 40% but padding -- not operational improvements -- boosted on-time arrival rates. 'By padding, airlines are gaming the system to fool you." He says if instead airlines tackled operational issues, customers would directly benefit. "Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2 which means if airline efficiency goes up, costs go down, benefitting both the environment and fares."
It's like Scotty, How else can they keep their reputation as a miracle worker?
The repair needs two weeks. I'll have it done in six hours
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So, instead of reporting the best possible time that they can only occasionally achieve in ideal conditions, they are now reporting times they can usually achieve. I wish electric car manufacturers would start doing that for their cars ranges. If I recall, airlines did not start doing this until they started to be fined for being late.
Anyone who flies a lot figured this out years ago.
I know this stuff is padded, and I think its great.
I do the same thing when I'm the driver of any trip. I plan for 9am, tell everyone else to be ready by 7:30am or 8am, and when we get a 'head-start' of 15 minutes everyone is happy. It helps when 'life' is baked into these times. I don't want to stress because someone takes an extra five minutes moving a luggage cart. I am not going to complain if I arrived in Chicago 'early.' Airline route times are there for customer service and this saves me so many headaches on the back-end that I call it one of the perks. Quiet time.
--
One advantage of talking to yourself is that you know at least somebody's listening. -- Franklin P. Jones
It is a high time to make the transition, onboard the system and assimilate the inevitability of asynchronous travel to release ourselves from the tyranny of timetables. The flight arrives when the flight arrives.
From the summary, at least, it sure doesn't seem like this guy knows what he's talking about:
Padding the schedule, alone, clearly can't change the amount of fuel that is used to get from point A to point B.
The flight isn't any longer, it's just the published time estimates that have increased.
They could give us the mean or average time, but then airlines would basically be late 50% of the time.
But people get all worked up about that.
So airlines increase the estimates to get their on time percentage up. It's common sense.
The OP seems to be lacking real world experience.
Most rational passengers think “on time departure” means at the posted departure time.
This is diametrically opposed to ATC. ATC defines “on time departures” randomly according to location.
For example, at Newark, ATC tower considers “on time departures” to be within 25 minutes of scheduled. Newark-servicing airlines and Federal Express rebelled. ATC was unfazed. (Continental played their game and scheduled departures for 25 minutes before scheduled. Suddenly, Continental was the number one airline with the most on-time departures.)
Blaming airlines for reacting to ATC is disingenuous.
People often need to make plans based on arrival time, be it for connection, train, or just when to get picked up. If padding gives a better chance of actually knowing when you'll get there who cares if it's longer than when you would have someone sitting at the airport for an hour for your late flight to arrive.
I'd be among the first to shout "those assholes" for a story with a presentation like this - but realistically, this one isn't bad. They're just reporting what it actually takes, systematic issues arise in every system, and with time they get better at reporting what it actually takes to complete a task. Getting from A to B, from the customer perspective, doesn't include the nuance of what it takes to do that, customers just care "how long to get from A to B." The last thing I want on a flight is airline workers driven like slaves and constantly cracking under the pressure, if it takes on average 15, 45, or 120 hours longer to get shit done - by all means - get shit done instead of driving people to burnout and potentially causing a crash in the process. People aren't machines, we require downtime (inclusive of "inefficiencies" experience in day-to-day work.)
I fly quite a bit. We often get in 15 minutes early. Given that most of the time I'm catching a connecting flight, it's a good thing to be on time, rather than 20 minutes late. That can make the difference between having to rush to catch the next flight, or being able to relax.
The article makes it out like there's something deceptive going on. There isn't.
What the article doesn't say is the price in 1960 was a LOT higher than it is now.
According to this:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3022215/what-it-was-really-like-to-fly-during-the-golden-age-of-travel
A flight from Phoenix to Chicago would cost 5% of the average person's salary. Today it's around 1%. It's going to take you a hell of a lot longer to get there when you have to drive, or take the train because you couldn't afford the plane ticket.
Because these flights were consistently late, airlines have now baked delays experienced for decades into their schedules instead of improving operations.
RIght there is the problem with media not undstanding what is going on, nor really looking into it.
The airlines used to give the average time. The fact is, that flight times vary due to a number of factors.
1) the flight might take off late due to local weather, or because OTHER airports in the system is backed up.
2) a flight might catch a STRONG headwind, or tailwind as in 50 to 100 mph. So, assuming 100 mph and a typical cruise speed of 560 mph, that means that flights might move at 460 or 660 mph. HUGE difference.
3) a flight might have to head 300-500 miles out of the way to avoid large thunderheads or simply to avoid hard turbulence, which most passengers are afraid of.
4) typically, if a large airport in a system (for America, ATL, ORD, LAX, DFW, and DEN are the top 5 airports), which any of these airports can be slowed way down or even shutdown due to weather), it will back up other airports.
5) Finally, flight operations CAN slow things down, but generally, this simply adds time to EVERY FLIGHT in/out of an airport.
So, claiming that it is flight operations is pointing at a minor issue, rather than the above major ones.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you read further down in the article, you find that this company is selling software that is supposed to improve things.
Yet, I doubt it. Weather is your real issue.
For example, the good captain speaks about flights coming in too late or too early and how his software improves that. Fact is, if a flight leaves late, and flight crew does nothing, then it will likely arrive late (tailwind could change things). So, a good flight crew will ask ATC for more direct routes and will likely cruise at faster speeds (however, increasing fuel usage).
Yeah, I do not buy what he is saying. He is just marketing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...if the TSA didn't need to fiddle with your wee wee in the name of security theater.
I take ground transportation whenever possible just to avoid this bullshit.
"On average, over 30% of all flights arrive more than 15 minutes late every day despite padding,"
The figure used to be 40% but padding . . . boosted on-time arrival rates.
"By padding, airlines are gaming the system to fool you."
Er, no, it sounds like by padding, airlines are giving more accurate information on flight times.
Which was the intent behind the regulations that require compensation when flights don't go on time.
You're complaining about something that was an improvement, brought about by deliberate action.
One other thing that was not considered. Back in the 60s, fuel was cheap, esp. in America. Jet engines burn through it amazing fast. Well, the early 707 and 727 had Jet engine. It was only in the last 60s that turbofans came into being with the 747-100 being the first to use one. But, jet engines are faster than turbofans. The early 7[023]7 moved at mach .8-.9. Now, most are .75-.85.
.98. But airlines want cheap to operate, which means better fuel efficiency.
That was why Boeing wanted to develop the SOnic Cruiser which would cruise at mach
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Even less here on /. WTF is wrong with the editors letting all this crap through?
Padding has been used for transportation modes ever since they had schedules. Trains were and are notorious: aggressive schedules at intermediate points, with enormous padding (equivalent to running at 10mph or less) for the segment leading up to a major time point or the end of the run. It's how Amtrak can miraculously be on time at a major station when it's been 1/2 or even 1 hour late for all the previous stops. There's no reason airlines shouldn't do the same. As a customer, would you rather that the schedule be one that can only be met if everything works perfectly, or one that usually works (occasionally, you might even arrive "early") so you can plan your overall trip?
Southwest has been known to adjust schedules frequently as conditions change, and to slow down when fuel prices are high. They almost certainly aren't the only ones.
The people objecting are hoping that if they report actual flight time vs estimated total travel time it will somehow speed up the trip.
I assure you, airlines hate delays more than you do. Time is quite literally their money. If they can cut travel time, they save energy costs - even on the tarmac awaiting lift off costs them energy, which costs $.
They are doing a better job by accurately informing you when you will arrive, so that you family can pick you up with less wasted waiting time for them. Your waiting time won't be shorter if they don't tell you about it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This article is conspiracy level bullshit. Correcting schedules for realistic time isn't about not fixing things that can be fixed, it's about accepting those that can't.
There isn't an airline on the planet that wouldn't choose to save fuel costs if given the chance.
If you say it'll be done in an hour, but take two you are an idiot.
If you say it'll be done in 4 hours, but take two you are a hero.
It's called managing customer expectations.
Yes, padding is needed for accurate schedule planning. But the underlying point is flying is a horrible experience. Passengers are subject to increasingly tortuous conditions (at least in the back half of the plane) to cut down costs. Airline psychologists keep track of how much passengers can endure before someone flips out, and push to that limit. We are unhappy that the plane _could_ typically arrive earlier if the airline wanted it to, but it doesn't. We must remain human baggage longer than we have to be.
That's what you expect us to believe? Or they didn't have wind or storms in the 60's?
That ain't English Ivan.
Also you are wrong as the other poster pointed out.
You're funny.
Firstly most of the delay i know of (i work in airline industry) have 4 main sources : passenger for a variety of reason , airport organisation (which are not airlines responsibility) , atc, internal issues like technical. E.g. pax is checked in, but pax do not board and his bag is in the belly, now need to unload count 10 to 15 minutes delay which can cascade. Airport personel do strike or illness and vad planning make some services slower. Same with atc. While there are quite a few way an airline and checkin crew can screw things up and delay, most of yhe time the delay is out if hand. So it is built in. Hkg being a clusterfuck ? Build in 30 min more. Bhx run smoothly ? Only forsee 10 min. Etc.... as a potential pax you should be happy rather than critical, because that means no matter what your schedule will be respected.
Always amusing to find more things WindBourne pretends to know but doesn't.
They're not "fooling you", they are being realistic. There's nothing sensible about a schedule that says "we'll get you to New York at 17:00, if everything goes perfectly". Because things don't go perfectly. Some kid barfed on the seat, or the fuel truck broke down, or a wheelchair passenger took longer to offload, or whatever. And when things go wrong - which they will - people counting on a punctual arrival will be pissed. How much better to say "we'll get you to New York by 17:30", and then pleasantly surprise the passengers if you arrive early!
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
A train journey that used to be under 60 mins 20 years ago now takes 75 mins
This also happens quite a lot in Europe, i suspect primarily because you have to compensate customers for (avoidable) delays in arrival time. So the flights got scheduled longer, so now typically you take off late but arrive earlier than scheduled, and not because of tail winds or flying faster. This way they don't have to compensate for their inefficiencies.
You have to pad at least an hour when dealing with millennials. If you want a millennial to be somewhere at 2pm, you have to tell them to be there at noon (you can't tell a millennial to be somewhere before noon, that's not allowed). You have to give them time to see if something more "experiential" comes along.
It would be nice if airlines stopped advertising departure times and instead advertised boarding times. Show up 10 minutes before departure and you aren't allowed on the plane. It's extremely annoying when you need to calculate how early to arrive at the airport and if that 15 minute connection they put on your schedule is actually 15 minutes or only 8 minutes.
Last time I did the Newark to LAX flight it took and hour to trundle from the gate (left on time) to the end of the runway for take off.
The issue isnt padding its airport capacity.
Surely that's just good schedule management.
"When we say we get there at 8, we struggle and usually only arrive at 8:30 on average. Therefore, it makes sense to tell people that we arrive at 8:30."
I can't see anything wrong with that.
Sure, maybe not "the fastest achievable time" but they don't claim that. Doing so would be stupid as it would open them up to all kinds of lawsuits.
I don't care about the technicalities. I want to know what time the plane (and therefore I) will get there, so that I can arrange to be picked up.
If one airlines says they can get me there for 8, and another for 9, and I need to be there for 8, guess what? I'll use that one in preference. Similarly, if I have to get there as soon as humanly possible, I'll use the airline that has the earliest arrival time, and others will have different times - whether that's because of the trip they take, the risks they avoid en-route, or their operational efficiency, it doesn't really matter does it?
Of all the accusations you could level at airlines "they gave us a more realistic time because they noticed that they couldn't always hit their promised time before" is hardly a bad one.
It was much easier being on time when there were only 10 flights a day ...
It's only government that doesn't strive to improve, since only government doesn't have the forces of competition to demand they improve their service year on year! The corporations will ALWAYS try to improve.
Oh, and no, you retarded fuckwit, it isn't a realistic number. They used to manage 75% of the times they listed often, not reliably, but now they can't even manage to reliably get THIS time, either. RTFS, they still miss by an average of 15 minutes.
Hell, trump complaints that noise gives you cancer. And ask someone whose home came under a new flight path how well their house price went. You DO keep bleating on about how some eco green stuff is bad because it ruins house prices nearby. Except not when it's petrolhead big, rightwing-ideology-friendly corporation...
Or are you talking out your arse. Because the wind still exists, and so therefore if you're against the wind, the slower you go, the further you have to travel.
It's the planes being delayed on take off due to passengers be delayed by the TSA.
That alone simplifies traffic and scheduling significantly.
and pay up for premium economy seats for long-haul flights. We all hate being crammed in that small seat for hours just because airline wants to squeeze out the last penny.
I can't believe I'm defending airlines but this is basic customer service. I'm definitely less angry if I'm given a more average case estimate, especially if it prevents me from missing my connection.
Flight delays happen for many reasons, most of which are outside of the control of an individual airline (weather, congestion).
Remember in the good ol' days the article is referring to, flying was too expensive for the average joes flying now. Plus there simply weren't as many people and they weren't all crammed into a small handful of cities.
Oh yeah, and they crashed a lot more :(
When people are booking tickets, they also consider the time taken, convenience of departure time, arrival time etc. So the airlines can not blindly pad it up, they will lose market share. That is why they are still 15 min late on average despite the padding.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
No one has discussed the hub and spoke system used by the airlines. Travelers have to travel to an airline's hub, such as Chicago or Atlanta to catch a connecting flight. The flights all need do arrive in a short period of time, so passengers can switch to their next flight. Then they all need to take off in a small window of time. Spreading the times out would result in published schedules with long layovers, which travelers would avoid. So, the schedules have 30 flights taking off in a short period of time and that is not realistic. However, all an airline has to do is push away from the gate on time. It doesn't matter they are number 15 to take off, with 10 of planes in line being from their own company. The operations improvement needed would be more direct flights. Publishing padded schedules is probably the least worst thing airlines do, since they at least they reflect reality.
I was once in London where my plane to Amsterdam departed an hour after schedule. The pilot cheerfully announced that he would make up for the delay by flying a faster route. We took off and lo and behold, we landed at Schiphol at the scheduled time.
Now I keep wondering what they do in the air during that extra hour that they normally use to get from London to Amsterdam
-- Cheers!
My best guess as to the excuse for the claim is that he's saying the airlines could improve the planes or routes somehow instead of padding flight times, but I don't really see how that works. Hell, maybe they just think that will make people pay more attention to an empty story.
Let's face it, this is a story about airlines providing better estimates for flight times. It's pretty boring.
I fly coast to coast quite often. It doesnâ(TM)t take 6 hours.
The real question is why do we only call airport paving tarmac when all asphalt is technically tarmacadam, and most airport paving is concrete.
So they are using decades of experience to actually schedule enough time for how long the flights typically take?
Why ... is that bad?
You do realise those speed ranges you gave overlap right?
So hardly any difference at all, or possibly even the opposite difference to your 'theory'.
first it says it's intentional that the flights take longer.
then it says that they were consistently late with the old schedules.
clearly they adjusted it for the time it actually takes when taking into account the airport traffics etc? like how someone can even write that up and not notice that they're full of shit in at least one of the sentences involved?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
"Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2 which means if airline efficiency goes up, costs go down, benefitting both the environment and fares."
Um.. How's that exactly? All the airlines are doing is making their schedules reflect reality. How long does it really take from push back to shutdown at the destination? Put that on the schedule and keep folks happy because they may get their sooner than planed, won't miss connections as much, the crews are more likely to be where planned and ATC won't be clogged up with flight plans that only have to get their departure times changed.
If you think the airline is flying around willy nily just to pad their schedules, you are an idiot. I can assure you that they spend as little time flying as they can manage because operating costs are MUCH higher when airborne than when on the ramp awaiting clearance. They are motivated by profit to use as little fuel as they safely can.
It's stuff like this that makes this whole CO2 emission argument seem lame. Stop using it where it doesn't apply please..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is the free market doing what it does: allocate resources and shape goods and services to something the customers buy.
INB4 "headphone jacks on a phone" - not "want", "buy". People don't want phones without headphone jacks, but they do buy them at top dollar premiums and then cry at the forums about the missing headphone jack, only to buy the next phone without one, either. Addiction is difficult to kick.
In the case of the plane schedules: the customer is presented with several options, a short expensive flight and a longer, cheaper one. Customers can then decide if they want speed with the occasional delay or discounts with a slow but more reliable schedule - and I guess they chose discounts more often. Airlines then changed to that model of scheduling: more reliable schedule and cheaper, slower operations.
No wonder socialist-admiring BBC doesn't like it.
Socialist Europe has invested untold billions in high-speed rail systems that never turn a profit to achieve incredible speeds that few people need or care for. Since doubling the speed quadruples the cost in energy and rail maintenance, halving the speed would quarter the cost. If European rail systems would still offer slow, reliable service for a quarter of the price, European high-speed rail would be on the brink of extinction very quickly as the customers would be invariably switching over to nighttrain mode of travel where one or two hours more for a long trip don't matter at all.
I would rather a plane get to its destination on time than late since if affects other plans. Thus, if they are padding flight times and this means the plane gets to its destination at the scheduled padded time, I'm fine with it. My schedule isn't affected. Nothing worse than missing a connecting flight because of a delay.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
So the airlines are revising their schedules to be more in line with reality. Isn't this a good thing? And its not making the flights actually longer or is "bad for the environment." The flights themselves aren't changing; passenengers are just being given more accurate information about the flight.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/wh...
If airplanes were willing to reduce checked-bag fees, and passengers were willing to delay boarding / disembarking, the overall process could be sped up drastically. But try to tell someone in row 20 that they have to wait to get up until someone in row 30 gets off first.
(((dB)))
I've also noticed they tend to rush everyone on board and leave early. I'm sure this helps their stats. However, I was bitten by this on a recent trip where my arriving flight was late and I rushed to the connecting flight gate arriving several minutes before the scheduled departure only to find that the plane had left the gate.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
...until I *gasp* read the article. Part of the reason for the padding is that airport congestion often forces planes to circle until a runway is available. You would think, with GPS,it would be fairly easy to create software that tracks flights in realtime and have them adjust their speed in flight to stagger their arrivals, and you'd be right. But the airlines aren't using it.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The car engine is tuned to that efficient output, maximising the wheel torque at the lowest RPM to increase the power and energy put to the road whilst minimising the internal frictional losses.
Since the airplane has to travel through the air which, due to this thing called "Wind" is always moving (a thing a car doesn't really have to worry about, except in really bad earthquakes), planes going slower have to travel further than faster airplanes do. Guess what that does for a trip of a set distance on a solid earth...
Oh, and the faster you go, the less time you spend anyway, so your fuel use per minute goes up, but the number of minutes go down. Don't call out the fraction of reality that makes your ideology fine, you shithead.
Airlines fly slower than they did in the past to save on fuel costs.
Because we allow so much time for security theater the added flight time often goes unnoticed.
Can't leave them out of the loop...the FLIGHT itself may take 60 minutes, but you have to get to the airport at least an hour before your flight, to go through all the illegal body searches done by the TSA.
Planes are expensive, airlines are naturally interested in making as many flights per day as possible.
But one could not expect too much from human beings entering the plane, it just takes time and I suspect it is boarding that takes longer than planned.
Always amusing to see WindBourne is wrong yet again.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... You're the only idiot WindBourne.
What a load of crap.
Aircraft engines are much more efficient than the 1960's/70's. A 707 carried less than 200 passengers on 4 loud, dirty and thirsty turbojets. A 777 seats double the amount of people but uses less fuel/person/km and is much quieter and cleaner.
Let's also talk about the immense increase in air travel in the last 50 years as well.
He thinks jets fly through storms, that's why they were on time.
Even though they weren't on time.
He's a bit like that.
This is nothing new, railroads padded the times for passenger trains back in the 1960s and earlier. Does Amtrak pad, I believe they do as well.