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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
For trains, being early is arguably much, MUCH worse than being a little late, especially if you have to board at one of those intermediate stations. Passengers are annoyed if a train that's supposed to arrive at 5:15pm arrives at 6:30 and departs at 6:35, but they'll be enraged if the train they're supposed to catch at 5:15pm arrives at 4:57pm and departs at 5:04pm.
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.
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 ...
That alone simplifies traffic and scheduling significantly.
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.
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.
So they are using decades of experience to actually schedule enough time for how long the flights typically take?
Why ... is that bad?
Why would you have to leave early just because you arrived early? That stop was reserved for you until the scheduled departure time anyway. Hang out at the station for a few extra minutes and give the crew a break. You probably want to stick to your departure time anyway so you don't conflict with other trains.
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
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)))
Yes, it is basic customer service.
If you're going to get there at 8:30, pretending does no good. The flight will take as long as it takes. Setting the schedule to reflect reality is just plain right, for customer service and management.
If you consistently arrive 'late', many airports will have the gate empty for that interval, wasteful perhaps, depending on demand. If you schedule realistically but arrive early, think tailwinds, you wait somewhere with the engines turning. Being 'on time' is the goal.
If you were thinking of improving customer (passenger) efficiency, then redesign the security processes. Planes do not magically fly faster or slower because you want them to, and peak fuel efficiency is well understood. It's more passenger miles than miles per pound of fuel.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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?
Caffeinated Bacon, you continue to be an idiot.
My father was an AA pilot starting in the 60s. I got to fly in 707s, DC-8s ( as well as a DC 7 several times ). We had a LOT of weather and flew through it regularly. With the dc-7, its ceiling was such that you flew through the storms, not around. And even in the 8s & 707, they flew through plenty of thunderheads.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...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.
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.