Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Airlines Make Flights Longer On Purpose (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the behind-the-scenes dept.

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."

32 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Airline scheduling by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!”
    1. Re:Airline scheduling by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      There's plenty of competition. They're just not competing (significantly) on on-time arrivals.

      Just because there's multiple suppliers of something doesn't mean they must compete on every possible aspect. Some are too hard to differentiate, some hurt other methods that the company is using to compete.

    2. Re:Airline scheduling by Bruinwar · · Score: 2

      Plenty of competition? Four major airlines left. Prices through the roof. Services/experience worse than ever. John Oliver on mergers It's a bit long, forward to 2:30 unless you want a chuckle or two. He's right, JetBlue doesn't count.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    3. Re:Airline scheduling by LazarusQLong · · Score: 2

      You've got it backwards, they are competing on "on time arrivals", so they lie about what "on time" means and advertise that they are "on time" all the time... even when you spend 45 minutes delayed on the tarmac waiting to take off.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    4. Re:Airline scheduling by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, This is just stupid bitching from someone who had to write a column.

      Airlines aren't flying slower to pad the schedule. Flights don't take six hours, they take the same about of time. The schedules just allow for unforeseen circumstances...weather, maintenance, etc.

      I have no problem at all waiting for the plane to be made safe and ready to go, delays for weather, etc. SAFETY is what is important, not getting there on time. An airliner is not a fucking bus. You can't just pull over and unload people while you deal with a mechanical issue. If they want to add an hour to the schedule and then get there early, so be it. You shouldn't be scheduling your activities so tightly to flights.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Airline scheduling by sycodon · · Score: 2

      I don't give a fuck about "on time".

      I care about "in one piece".

      Dickheads who bitch and moan that the plane leaves late because the mechanics were checking something out, or they need to de-ice, or wait for weather, or because the plane has to divert for weather, etc. deserve to die in a ball of flame.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Airline scheduling by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a feeling it has more to do with sharing runways with more flights, sharing air traffic control with more flights, and sharing the air with more flights.

      If you had 100 flights a day in the 1960s out of airport X, and now you have 5000 flights out of that same airport... somehow I don't think they expanded the airport enough to keep up.

    7. Re:Airline scheduling by sycodon · · Score: 2

      The ATC system is definitely pushed to the limit.

      If anything, the constraints on the ATC system and physical airport infrastructure, as you mention, is what drives most delays.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Realistic number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Realistic number by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, yeah. They are telling the truth (more or less) about how long the travel takes now.

    2. Re:Realistic number by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Only on /. would people complain that a corporation is being more honest about the time it takes to get from point A to point B.

      Airlines used to plan best-case travel times, and many times that didn't happen. That could be for any number of reasons having nothing at all to do with their operations. Diverting around weather, lineups for departure, delays for landing due to weather, etc. Airlines aren't just flying around in circles to waste gas because they're 15 minutes early and have to arrive exactly on the padded arrival time, and being late impacts much more than just the people on that one flight.

      Outside of major issues, most of the flights I have been on have arrived early. It is actually a Good Thing when something does delay a flight and it still arrives on schedule. It's actually a Great Thing when a small delay in departure can result in no delay in arrival. It's a Really Bad Day when a plane arrives too late to make connections, because that can result in multi-day delays in people getting to final destinations.

    3. Re:Realistic number by Kotukunui · · Score: 2

      Personal anecdote that doesn't add much, but I want to tell it. Flew from Auckland, New Zealand to San Francisco, USA direct ~13 hour flight. Don't know if it was due to padding or just good tailwinds but we arrived 30 minutes early and had to wait on the ground until the airport could let us go to gate and de-plane. Sometimes "too early" is just as painful as "too late". Having to spend 30 extra minutes in a seat that you have just spent 13 hours sitting in while we could actually see our jetway/airbridge from the windows was torture....

    4. Re:Realistic number by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Not the GP, but often airlines turn off most of the in-flight entertainment system on approach and leave it off after landing. If you'd planned on watching a film, weren't able to watch the last 30 minutes, but still had to sit in uncomfortable plane seat for that time, I can imagine that you'd be cranky.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Realistic number by Stolpskott · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For some people, it would make no difference. But for the vast majority of people, being in the air for an extra 30 minutes would actually be less arduous than landing and being close enough that you could (regulations aside) walk the last few steps.
      An illustrative anecdote that I saw a few years ago was about the design of a new airport terminal (I think it might have been Terminal E at Dallas Fort Worth or one of the newer terminals at Atlanta, but I am not 100% sure and my Google skills are as bad as usual...). The architects and designers were very vocal about how much time, effort, and new-fangled computer simulation time they had spent in optimizing the passenger off-boarding, minimizing the time and distance from deplaning to the passengers getting to the public areas.
      Almost everybody who flew into that terminal hated it.
      Why? Because while it was incredibly quick to get through the whole process if you only had carry-on luggage, the baggage handling system was the same as at every other airport. So people found that they got through security and to the baggage claim area very quickly, but they were waiting a long time for their luggage.
      How was it solved? With a brand new automated baggage handling and prioritization system?
      No... it was solved by giving passengers who were deplaning an artificially long route from the Arrivals Gate to Security, and from there to the Baggage Claim. The goal was that the passengers and their baggage should arrive at about the same time.
      It worked... people now loved (or at least liked) arriving at the new terminal, because they were able to get to Baggage Claim, pick up their luggage (or wait a minute or two for it to arrive) and go.
      The fact that they were not actually saving any time with the new process (no change was made to the baggage handling system, it was still operating at the same speed as before) was irrelevant and un-noticed. All that changed was the passenger perception - they were kept busy by walking, just long enough for everything else around them to work.

      People are stupid. As babies, our parents give us brightly coloured toys to distract us and keep us quiet. As we get older, the toys get more expensive, but there are all sorts of adults giving us things to achieve the same goal, and sometimes we even do it to ourselves.

    6. Re:Realistic number by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Informative
      The airline schedule is self reported by the air line. It is simply a truth-in-advertising, truth-in-labeling compliance.

      Electric car mileage is not a self reported thing by the company. It is tested and certified by a government agency. Heard YMMV? Why is that? Everyone knows YMMV. It is basically a comparison tool. If you want to compare the fuel costs of two vehicles, you compare their reported MPG rating. To compare electric car with a gasoline car you compare the MPGe with MPG. It is still an imperfect tool. Gas prices and electricity prices vary a lot all over the country.

      To compare two electric cars you compare the EPA tested miles. Again, there is no guarantee you will actually achieve the reported range, but under similar circumstances, EPA rated 300 mile car will go double the distance of a EPA rated 150 miles car. That is all it is useful for.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:Realistic number by LostMyAccount · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whether the flight is "early" or "on time" is mostly driven by whether there is a gate available within their projected arrival time based on performance to the halfway point.

      If the gate is occupied by an earlier flight, they slow down and arrive "on time" so there's a gate available.

      If the gate is sitting empty because there's not enough flights to tax gate capacity, they arrive early. It's a huge PR win and it doesn't tax the ground services cleaning and prepping the plane for the next flight.

    8. Re:Realistic number by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      but often airlines turn off most of the in-flight entertainment system on approach and leave it off after landing

      And, more annoyingly, air conditioning. It can get awfully hot in these 30 minutes...

  3. It makes me feel good when I'm early... by Arzaboa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:It makes me feel good when I'm early... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you describe is one of the few things good about Disney - underpromise/overdeliver. When you're in line and the sign says you have a 30 minute wait for a ride, it's realistically more like 20. If it's less than they say you're happy, if it's more you're pissed.

      But yeah, the article/summary is extremely biased. "Because these flights were consistently late, airlines have now baked delays..." is just a biased way of saying they realized they were wrong, and fixed it. And it completely ignores the importance of schedules when there are connecting flights - I'd much rather sit at a gate for an extra 15 minutes than miss a connection and have to wait hours.

      No, they're not wasting fuel and melting glaciers. Time is money, and they want to get there as soon as they can. But there are lots of moving parts not under direct control (think weather, equipment issues, and other airlines). The summary's comparison to 50 years ago is simple ignorance (at best, otherwise deliberate misrepresentation) - there are now way more flights and there's way more complexity/chaos to affect flight times.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:It makes me feel good when I'm early... by nine-times · · Score: 2

      "Because these flights were consistently late, airlines have now baked delays..." is just a biased way of saying they realized they were wrong, and fixed it.

      It seems like the truth might be somewhere in between. There was a schedule, and flights could have stuck to that schedule. However, the flights kept getting delayed for a variety of reasons-- some economic, some technical, some regulatory. Being unable to fix those problems right now, airlines have chosen to pad their schedules so that flights are more likely to arrive on time. It's a reasonable approach, but not necessarily the best outcome. It'd be great if we could fix the myriad problems with air travel, but our society has thrown up its hands and given up on trying to fix problems.

      Sorry, that's not fair. If it's a problem that can be fixed by spending a few months creating a half-assed mobile app and then sell your company for a billion dollars, then we'll come up with 20 different solutions to that problem. Otherwise, nope.

  4. questionable logic by whizzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the summary, at least, it sure doesn't seem like this guy knows what he's talking about:

    Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2

    Padding the schedule, alone, clearly can't change the amount of fuel that is used to get from point A to point B.

    1. Re:questionable logic by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      If anything, it should REDUCE the CO2 emissions, because if you have 30 minutes to "kill" on a long leg, you can fly slower - and since losses go as the square of velocity, a small reduction in airspeed really saves quite a bit of fuel. In fact, that's why the A380 is "slow" across the Pacific - it flies slower so it saves more fuel than a B777/787 doing the same trip (15 hours from LAX to CAN versus 13-13.5 for the Boeing planes).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:questionable logic by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Actually reducing the delays though would reduce CO2 emissions, at least from airports where the plane has to run an APU.

      Also, schedule padding can lead to issues like a plane arriving while another plane is still using its gate, resulting in the plane idling on the tarmac until the gate is clear.....for two fucking hours.....occasionally having to rev up and move the plane so they were not in the way for other flights.....*starts mumbling and rocking back and forth*

    3. Re: questionable logic by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      I should qualify that by adding some more complexity; altitude plays a significant factor in efficiency as well. Lower air density at higher altitudes reduces drag, but it also raises the minimum airspeed required to maintain lift. So, depending on the aircraft, you may not be able to reduce speed all that much while still maintaining the optimum altitude.

      Yeah, it's complicated.

    4. Re:questionable logic by Cederic · · Score: 2

      That's not the airline. That's a badly run airport.

  5. So what by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. bad story. by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    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.
  7. Actually, part of it makes sense by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  8. Cruise Speed difference. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    That was why Boeing wanted to develop the SOnic Cruiser which would cruise at mach .98. But airlines want cheap to operate, which means better fuel efficiency.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Most agree, this is a good idea. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  10. Conspiracy level bullshit by topham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Really? by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.