Tarmac delays seem to produce lots of passion on both sides of the debate.   Consumers are very attracted to this issue, in part, because they’re often abused by airlines in so many different ways.  This is one issue where the consumers can get together on their outrage.   Industry insiders and airlines are vehemently against this kind of rule frequently citing conditions that aren’t addressed by it or pointing to certain conditions of the rule as being silly.

 

This morning, I had 2 emails asking my opinion and I’ve been engaged in a debate with two other people on the subject as well.  What do I think?  I think the rule is a good idea. 

 

Not because it solves tarmac delay problems.  It doesn’t.  Not because it strikes a blow for consumers across the country, it really doesn’t.  I like it because it sets some sort of criteria for a situation that needed to be addressed.  It’s a start, not a finish. 

 

Lots of issues related to airline traffic, delays and congestion have been deferred for years by a debate on how to render a solution for everything.  That’s never going to happen.  However, it is possible to address certain issues and this new rule is simply a limit on some egregious behavior. 

 

Let’s look at some of the arguments against this rule:

 

If a pilot is next to take off and hits his 3 hour window, he has to turn and head back to the gate immediately!  Balderdash.  If a pilot is next in line to take-off, ATC can give the aircraft an exception because it *will* disrupt airport operations if that pilot has to now taxi down the runway to get back to the gate.  For that matter, do we really believe that the FAA is going to fine an airline for waiting an extra 5 minutes to complete a take-off at that point?  Really?  I don’t.  The FAA is many things but they grant variances to certain conditions all the time already (including safety related items.)  They understand that those situations are not always black and white.

 

Food and water are required after two hours.  Well, personally, I agree with the Cranky Flier that the food requirement after two hours is a bit silly.  However, is this a reason not to have a rule setting a standard?  No, of course not.  What this food requirement really means is that airlines will need to stock some snacks on those bad days and distribute them after 2 hours.  When you think about it, distributing a small snack and some water after two hours isn’t exactly a bad business decision anyway.  Doing that should help keep some tempers cooler.   And think about this:  What if the delay isn’t a take-off delay but a diversion delay?  What is that aircraft was flying for 3.5 hours, landed at a diversion airport and two more hours have passed?  That’s a minimum of 5.5 hours since departing a gate and, yeah, feeding some people at that point is probably a good idea again, isn’t it?   Could the requirement be written better?  Certainly.  On the other hand, it’s not a good argument against a 3 hour rule.

 

What if everyone wants to stay on board after 3 hours and continue to try to take-off?  What if almost everyone want to keep trying and just a couple of people want off?  Well, in theory, that sounds like a real moral dilemma.  let’s take a look at what reality is more likely to be.  If an aircraft hits its 3 hour point and isn’t anywhere close to taking off, it’s time to give it up anyway.  If it is near taking off, then almost by definition this aircraft won’t be able to “leave the line” without massively disrupting airport operations and under that circumstance, the ground controller is going to issue an exception and keep them there. 

 

This wouldn’t have fixed the Rochester incident.  Granted, that ugly incident was more a result of an uncooperative party than anything else.  However, the fines issued in that incident and this new rule clearly communicate that airlines need to do better and cooperate more with each other.  The FAA fined all three parties to that incident and made it clear that while Mesaba was the obstacle, neither ExpressJet nor Continental exactly wielded their influence in that situation either.  More could have and should have been done.  Airlines are getting that message and acting accordingly now.  Regardless if this would have or would not have fixed that particular incident, it still isn’t an argument against doing something and setting some standard to live by.

 

Airlines are doing better now anyway!  Maybe.  Maybe not.  We’ve only just entered this winter season and while I grant that the airlines in the NYC area did *much* better with last weekend’s storm, it doesn’t mean it can’t happen again.  Most people would agree that those airlines acted as they did last weekend because of public backlash.  They cancelled flights earlier and managed their loads with larger equipment.  Something they should have always been doing but didn’t.  Let me also point out that airline capacity has been dramatically reduced over the past 18 months and it’s no wonder that there was less of an issue.  That capacity will come back someday, however.  So, if they’re doing better, how does this rule harm them?  It doesn’t and it’s not a good argument against a standard. 

 

This rule means that with more cancellations, more people won’t get home for the holidays.  Again, maybe.  Maybe not.  First, it will depend on whether or not there are delays during the holidays.   Last year, major holiday periods didn’t see any severe weather.  This year, we will see some.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, passengers can be much better consumers in most cases and plan their travel to reduce their delay and cancellation risk.  Just as airlines need to do better, so do customers.  But this rule doesn’t arbitrarily mean that more people don’t get where they’re going for the holidays.  And, so, again, it really isn’t an argument against a standard or rule.   And, let me point out again that airlines coped with the last storm by *cancelling* earlier and more flights than they would have originally be inclined to do so.  In other words, even the airlines who claims they’ve fixed it, fixed it essentially the same way this rule forced them to do.

 

I do think the rule could be a tad better.  I do think that we need more solutions to more of the problems that contribute to these delays.  This isn’t an end to the problem.  It’s the beginning of finding a solution to just one of those problems.  And after 10 or more years of egregious tarmac delays*, it’s time to try something.  So we’ll try this for a while.  You can be sure that no one is going to go bankrupt from this rule and the delays certainly aren’t going to get worse because of this rule so let’s see how this works out.

 

*  Most people date tarmac delays to the infamous 2006 Kate Hanni in Austin on American Airlines incident.  Well, these delays were going on for a lot longer than that.  I can recall delays in the Chicago area for summer storms reaching 5 and 6 hours back in ’98 or ’99.  I remember horrific tarmac delays in Detroit (and nearby cities) in the summer of 2000, too.  The pot simply boiled over in 2006.

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax