<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Cranky Flier</title>
	
	<link>http://crankyflier.com</link>
	<description />
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:05:00 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/crankyflier_Comments" /><feedburner:info uri="crankyflier_comments" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>crankyflier_Comments</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by CF</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/Ed_YpZsqK3A/</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96338</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;1. Why the airlines? You can argue many of the factors are out of their hands, but it has to be the airlines, they are the ones with who we exchange money for services. No-one else is a counterparty to individual travelers.&lt;/em&gt;
I don't see how that makes sense.  If something is out of the control of the airlines, how are they supposed to fix it?

&lt;em&gt;2. Why not airports and the DOT? Airports have slots, but airlines overschedule the slots. Current slot controls don’t have enough teeth. On a perfect day, at a slot-controlled airport, it is known and guaranteed that some flights will be late due to overscheduling. Let us enforce them, *with fines*, and hopefully all the airlines, airports and apologists will not construct new excuses.&lt;/em&gt;
That is absolutely not true.  Where airports have slot controls, there is no overscheduling of slots.  The airlines only schedule the number of flights they are allowed to schedule.  If that number is above the true airport capacity, then slots should be adjusted to the right number.

&lt;em&gt;4. Too many 2+ hour delayed flights will get canceled also. Personally I think 2 hours is too much also. Yes I want to get to my destination. But I don’t want to have to spend 6 hours on a plane to go LGA-ORD. [Which is legal today, between a 3 hour delay, 2.5 hour actual flying time, and possible circling and gate delays on arrival]. 10 years ago, it used to take 1:45 of flying time. Now airlines have overloaded the ATC system, and they bitch about it.&lt;/em&gt;
You may think a 2+ hour delay is bad, but there are plenty of people who would rather get to their destination even if it involves a 2 hour delay.  It's better than not getting there at all.  Here's the thing.  When the weather gets really bad at congested airports (and that's when these incidents are more likely to happen), then airlines nearly always allow customers to change their plans without a fee.  I would love to see an airline announce at the gate that long delays are likely so then you can simply walk away because you don't want to sit on the ground for 2 hours while everyone else can still get to their destination.

&lt;em&gt;5. People want frequency. Yes but within reason. Airlines have made it absurd. We don’t need so many flights DFW-LGA for ‘travelers’ convenience’. No traveler would object if the 3:10, 3:40 and 4:35 were consolidated into 2 flights. Airlines will very likely save money on operating 2 bigger flights instead of 3 smaller ones. I will have to make my ‘business travel’ schedule fit the airlines schedules (and whims) today. I will adjust, especially if my arrival time is more predictable. My employer will be happy to adjust if fares are cheaper. The issue is, airlines have chosen smaller planes to have more flexibility, and many don’t have bigger planes to fly. They can’t fix this overnight, but there are plenty of aircraft of all shapes and sizes parked in the desert.&lt;/em&gt;
Let's look further at your example.  Two of those flights are operated by 140 seat MD-80s and the other is operated by a 160 seat 737-800.  So that's 440 seats total.  Though a 767 technically can land at LaGuardia, I think it's highly unlikely that they would use that plane since it focuses more on international.  That leaves the 188 seat 757, so with two flights, that's 376 seats, or a 15% cut.  It's not an easy thing to fix, though this might be an ideal place to actually cut one flight.  Where else could you do it, however?

&lt;em&gt;I also found that Cranky left hanging points of Kate’s unanswered. For example:
- Spirit Air doesn’t report because they are below the threshold, and have had a lot of problems lately.&lt;/em&gt;
I said in a previous comment that I definitely think the threshold for reporting airlines should be lowered to include all regionals and airlines like Spirit.  I'm not sure what you want me to say about Spirit.  Maybe they had a couple of instances?  It doesn't dramatically change the number. 

&lt;em&gt;- Airlines voluntarily reduced capacity at O’Hare, and Newark has caps. But other airlines have added flights to offset, and we’re now worse than before the voluntarily reductions.&lt;/em&gt;
That happened at O'Hare, but it's not really as much of an issue anymore with the new runway capacity.  As for Newark, no other airline has added capacity.  There are slots in place which, as I've already said, cannot be exceeded.  If the issue is overscheduling, slots are the answer.  I still maintain that the big issue is variability and not overscheduling.

&lt;em&gt;PS. Personally, my pet peeve is not being stuck on the tarmac. I’ve been lucky enough that it’s only happened twice in about 10 years for me. It’s that while I am still in the terminal, airlines keep pushing flights out, and then cancelling them after stringing us along. In one of the February snowstorms, I watched LGA-ATL flights get delayed, changed, cancelled, all day. Eventually, only 2 of the flights scheduled from 3:00-9:00 actually operated but you only would have learned that as the evening wore on.&lt;/em&gt;
You act as if the airlines should know that the flights won't operate, but weather is not the easiest thing to predict.  The airlines want to operate as many flights as they can in order to get people, planes, and crews to where they need to be, but that's not always possible.  Snow may have been expected to let up but it didn't.  There are a million moving parts.  The only alternative is just to cancel outright and that's not ideal for most.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>1. Why the airlines? You can argue many of the factors are out of their hands, but it has to be the airlines, they are the ones with who we exchange money for services. No-one else is a counterparty to individual travelers.</em><br />
I don&#8217;t see how that makes sense.  If something is out of the control of the airlines, how are they supposed to fix it?</p>
<p><em>2. Why not airports and the DOT? Airports have slots, but airlines overschedule the slots. Current slot controls don’t have enough teeth. On a perfect day, at a slot-controlled airport, it is known and guaranteed that some flights will be late due to overscheduling. Let us enforce them, *with fines*, and hopefully all the airlines, airports and apologists will not construct new excuses.</em><br />
That is absolutely not true.  Where airports have slot controls, there is no overscheduling of slots.  The airlines only schedule the number of flights they are allowed to schedule.  If that number is above the true airport capacity, then slots should be adjusted to the right number.</p>
<p><em>4. Too many 2+ hour delayed flights will get canceled also. Personally I think 2 hours is too much also. Yes I want to get to my destination. But I don’t want to have to spend 6 hours on a plane to go LGA-ORD. [Which is legal today, between a 3 hour delay, 2.5 hour actual flying time, and possible circling and gate delays on arrival]. 10 years ago, it used to take 1:45 of flying time. Now airlines have overloaded the ATC system, and they bitch about it.</em><br />
You may think a 2+ hour delay is bad, but there are plenty of people who would rather get to their destination even if it involves a 2 hour delay.  It&#8217;s better than not getting there at all.  Here&#8217;s the thing.  When the weather gets really bad at congested airports (and that&#8217;s when these incidents are more likely to happen), then airlines nearly always allow customers to change their plans without a fee.  I would love to see an airline announce at the gate that long delays are likely so then you can simply walk away because you don&#8217;t want to sit on the ground for 2 hours while everyone else can still get to their destination.</p>
<p><em>5. People want frequency. Yes but within reason. Airlines have made it absurd. We don’t need so many flights DFW-LGA for ‘travelers’ convenience’. No traveler would object if the 3:10, 3:40 and 4:35 were consolidated into 2 flights. Airlines will very likely save money on operating 2 bigger flights instead of 3 smaller ones. I will have to make my ‘business travel’ schedule fit the airlines schedules (and whims) today. I will adjust, especially if my arrival time is more predictable. My employer will be happy to adjust if fares are cheaper. The issue is, airlines have chosen smaller planes to have more flexibility, and many don’t have bigger planes to fly. They can’t fix this overnight, but there are plenty of aircraft of all shapes and sizes parked in the desert.</em><br />
Let&#8217;s look further at your example.  Two of those flights are operated by 140 seat MD-80s and the other is operated by a 160 seat 737-800.  So that&#8217;s 440 seats total.  Though a 767 technically can land at LaGuardia, I think it&#8217;s highly unlikely that they would use that plane since it focuses more on international.  That leaves the 188 seat 757, so with two flights, that&#8217;s 376 seats, or a 15% cut.  It&#8217;s not an easy thing to fix, though this might be an ideal place to actually cut one flight.  Where else could you do it, however?</p>
<p><em>I also found that Cranky left hanging points of Kate’s unanswered. For example:<br />
- Spirit Air doesn’t report because they are below the threshold, and have had a lot of problems lately.</em><br />
I said in a previous comment that I definitely think the threshold for reporting airlines should be lowered to include all regionals and airlines like Spirit.  I&#8217;m not sure what you want me to say about Spirit.  Maybe they had a couple of instances?  It doesn&#8217;t dramatically change the number. </p>
<p><em>- Airlines voluntarily reduced capacity at O’Hare, and Newark has caps. But other airlines have added flights to offset, and we’re now worse than before the voluntarily reductions.</em><br />
That happened at O&#8217;Hare, but it&#8217;s not really as much of an issue anymore with the new runway capacity.  As for Newark, no other airline has added capacity.  There are slots in place which, as I&#8217;ve already said, cannot be exceeded.  If the issue is overscheduling, slots are the answer.  I still maintain that the big issue is variability and not overscheduling.</p>
<p><em>PS. Personally, my pet peeve is not being stuck on the tarmac. I’ve been lucky enough that it’s only happened twice in about 10 years for me. It’s that while I am still in the terminal, airlines keep pushing flights out, and then cancelling them after stringing us along. In one of the February snowstorms, I watched LGA-ATL flights get delayed, changed, cancelled, all day. Eventually, only 2 of the flights scheduled from 3:00-9:00 actually operated but you only would have learned that as the evening wore on.</em><br />
You act as if the airlines should know that the flights won&#8217;t operate, but weather is not the easiest thing to predict.  The airlines want to operate as many flights as they can in order to get people, planes, and crews to where they need to be, but that&#8217;s not always possible.  Snow may have been expected to let up but it didn&#8217;t.  There are a million moving parts.  The only alternative is just to cancel outright and that&#8217;s not ideal for most.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/gnsUmFFnwcAhb27RNc-xALNMTJQ/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/gnsUmFFnwcAhb27RNc-xALNMTJQ/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/gnsUmFFnwcAhb27RNc-xALNMTJQ/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/gnsUmFFnwcAhb27RNc-xALNMTJQ/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=Ed_YpZsqK3A:RRE4UwZf5YY:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/Ed_YpZsqK3A" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96338</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by AS</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/4qwdQmF8l5I/</link>
		<dc:creator>AS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96335</guid>
		<description>I'm with Kate too.  I don't think this rule is perfect, but if forces airlines to take action.  They had years and chose not to do enough.  

1. Why the airlines?  You can argue many of the factors are out of their hands, but it has to be the airlines, they are the ones with who we exchange money for services.  No-one else is a counterparty to individual travelers.

2. Why not airports and the DOT?  Airports have slots, but airlines overschedule the slots.  Current slot controls don't have enough teeth.  On a perfect day, at a slot-controlled airport, it is known and guaranteed that some flights will be late due to overscheduling.  Let us enforce them, *with fines*, and hopefully all the airlines, airports and apologists will not construct new excuses.

3. It is such a rare occurrence anyway.  If so, then why are you so violently against it.  It will happen rarely and will protect those people wrong by that rare event.  The rule forces the airlines to have a contingency plan.  Which they didn't in the past.  Contingency plans are a good thing.  Please don't fight the airlines actually having a plan.

3b. 904 delays of over 3 hours.  You can run the math.  But if you believe the airlines voluntarily (cough, cough) policies, even 100 should be unacceptable.  Even 10 should be unacceptable.  It still happens...

4. Too many 2+ hour delayed flights will get canceled also.  Personally I think 2 hours is too much also.  Yes I want to get to my destination.  But I don't want to have to spend 6 hours on a plane to go LGA-ORD. [Which is legal today, between a 3 hour delay, 2.5 hour actual flying time, and possible circling and gate delays on arrival].  10 years ago, it used to take 1:45 of flying time.  Now airlines have overloaded the ATC system, and they bitch about it.

5. People want frequency.  Yes but within reason.  Airlines have made it absurd. We don't need so many flights DFW-LGA for 'travelers' convenience'.  No traveler would object if the 3:10, 3:40 and 4:35 were consolidated into 2 flights.  Airlines will very likely save money on operating 2 bigger flights instead of 3 smaller ones.  I will have to make my 'business travel' schedule fit the airlines schedules (and whims) today.  I will adjust, especially if my arrival time is more predictable.  My employer will be happy to adjust if fares are cheaper.  The issue is, airlines have chosen smaller planes to have more flexibility, and many don't have bigger planes to fly.  They can't fix this overnight, but there are plenty of aircraft of all shapes and sizes parked in the desert.  

I also found that Cranky left hanging points of Kate's unanswered.  For example:
- Spirit Air doesn't report because they are below the threshold, and have had a lot of problems lately.
- Airlines voluntarily reduced capacity at O'Hare, and Newark has caps.  But other airlines have added flights to offset, and we're now worse than before the voluntarily reductions.


Kate took this round.

PS. Personally, my pet peeve is not being stuck on the tarmac.  I've been lucky enough that it's only happened twice in about 10 years for me.   It's that while I am still in the terminal, airlines keep pushing flights out, and then cancelling them after stringing us along.  In one of the February snowstorms, I watched LGA-ATL flights get delayed, changed, cancelled, all day.  Eventually, only 2 of the flights scheduled from 3:00-9:00 actually operated but you only would have learned that as the evening wore on.  

I would like to see a different, simpler rule.  At some point after scheduled departure (2 hours, 3 hours, you choose), airlines either cancel, or guarantee the flight (or compensation even if it's weather).  The airline did no passengers any favors when they took the 3:00 flight to 5:00, then 5:15, 5:30, 6:15, 6:30, 6:45, called boarding, and then cancelled it 2 mins later.  [They used that plane &amp; crew to go to FLL instead].  Make an up-or-down call within 2 or 3 hours, but don't string me along.  I would bet people would have been much happier going home at 5:00 knowing they could not go, than being strung until 6:30, given false hope, and then being sent home.  If I had someone dropping me off at the airport, I would not want them strung along for an undefined number of hours waiting to see if I could go, or if they needed to stay to drive me back home and try again in the next day or two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with Kate too.  I don&#8217;t think this rule is perfect, but if forces airlines to take action.  They had years and chose not to do enough.  </p>
<p>1. Why the airlines?  You can argue many of the factors are out of their hands, but it has to be the airlines, they are the ones with who we exchange money for services.  No-one else is a counterparty to individual travelers.</p>
<p>2. Why not airports and the DOT?  Airports have slots, but airlines overschedule the slots.  Current slot controls don&#8217;t have enough teeth.  On a perfect day, at a slot-controlled airport, it is known and guaranteed that some flights will be late due to overscheduling.  Let us enforce them, *with fines*, and hopefully all the airlines, airports and apologists will not construct new excuses.</p>
<p>3. It is such a rare occurrence anyway.  If so, then why are you so violently against it.  It will happen rarely and will protect those people wrong by that rare event.  The rule forces the airlines to have a contingency plan.  Which they didn&#8217;t in the past.  Contingency plans are a good thing.  Please don&#8217;t fight the airlines actually having a plan.</p>
<p>3b. 904 delays of over 3 hours.  You can run the math.  But if you believe the airlines voluntarily (cough, cough) policies, even 100 should be unacceptable.  Even 10 should be unacceptable.  It still happens&#8230;</p>
<p>4. Too many 2+ hour delayed flights will get canceled also.  Personally I think 2 hours is too much also.  Yes I want to get to my destination.  But I don&#8217;t want to have to spend 6 hours on a plane to go LGA-ORD. [Which is legal today, between a 3 hour delay, 2.5 hour actual flying time, and possible circling and gate delays on arrival].  10 years ago, it used to take 1:45 of flying time.  Now airlines have overloaded the ATC system, and they bitch about it.</p>
<p>5. People want frequency.  Yes but within reason.  Airlines have made it absurd. We don&#8217;t need so many flights DFW-LGA for &#8216;travelers&#8217; convenience&#8217;.  No traveler would object if the 3:10, 3:40 and 4:35 were consolidated into 2 flights.  Airlines will very likely save money on operating 2 bigger flights instead of 3 smaller ones.  I will have to make my &#8216;business travel&#8217; schedule fit the airlines schedules (and whims) today.  I will adjust, especially if my arrival time is more predictable.  My employer will be happy to adjust if fares are cheaper.  The issue is, airlines have chosen smaller planes to have more flexibility, and many don&#8217;t have bigger planes to fly.  They can&#8217;t fix this overnight, but there are plenty of aircraft of all shapes and sizes parked in the desert.  </p>
<p>I also found that Cranky left hanging points of Kate&#8217;s unanswered.  For example:<br />
- Spirit Air doesn&#8217;t report because they are below the threshold, and have had a lot of problems lately.<br />
- Airlines voluntarily reduced capacity at O&#8217;Hare, and Newark has caps.  But other airlines have added flights to offset, and we&#8217;re now worse than before the voluntarily reductions.</p>
<p>Kate took this round.</p>
<p>PS. Personally, my pet peeve is not being stuck on the tarmac.  I&#8217;ve been lucky enough that it&#8217;s only happened twice in about 10 years for me.   It&#8217;s that while I am still in the terminal, airlines keep pushing flights out, and then cancelling them after stringing us along.  In one of the February snowstorms, I watched LGA-ATL flights get delayed, changed, cancelled, all day.  Eventually, only 2 of the flights scheduled from 3:00-9:00 actually operated but you only would have learned that as the evening wore on.  </p>
<p>I would like to see a different, simpler rule.  At some point after scheduled departure (2 hours, 3 hours, you choose), airlines either cancel, or guarantee the flight (or compensation even if it&#8217;s weather).  The airline did no passengers any favors when they took the 3:00 flight to 5:00, then 5:15, 5:30, 6:15, 6:30, 6:45, called boarding, and then cancelled it 2 mins later.  [They used that plane &amp; crew to go to FLL instead].  Make an up-or-down call within 2 or 3 hours, but don&#8217;t string me along.  I would bet people would have been much happier going home at 5:00 knowing they could not go, than being strung until 6:30, given false hope, and then being sent home.  If I had someone dropping me off at the airport, I would not want them strung along for an undefined number of hours waiting to see if I could go, or if they needed to stay to drive me back home and try again in the next day or two.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2NKlTTDW72JEPR2HJ1pi19PAMFk/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2NKlTTDW72JEPR2HJ1pi19PAMFk/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2NKlTTDW72JEPR2HJ1pi19PAMFk/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2NKlTTDW72JEPR2HJ1pi19PAMFk/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=4qwdQmF8l5I:q7qi_YS_7qk:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/4qwdQmF8l5I" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96335</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cranky on the Web (March 7-12) by CF</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/HFZVfae7eWM/</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4665#comment-96331</guid>
		<description>I would agree with Mat, they haven't been slow sellers globally.  Take a look at Embraer, for example.  There have already been &lt;a href="http://www.airfleets.net/listing/e190-1.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;339 Embraer 190/195s built&lt;/a&gt;.  That's pretty good so far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree with Mat, they haven&#8217;t been slow sellers globally.  Take a look at Embraer, for example.  There have already been <a href="http://www.airfleets.net/listing/e190-1.htm" rel="nofollow">339 Embraer 190/195s built</a>.  That&#8217;s pretty good so far.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_rqQeeKDZ1nd-tqdJEYASXTLMks/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_rqQeeKDZ1nd-tqdJEYASXTLMks/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_rqQeeKDZ1nd-tqdJEYASXTLMks/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_rqQeeKDZ1nd-tqdJEYASXTLMks/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=HFZVfae7eWM:O7GpRxTTYKw:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/HFZVfae7eWM" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/13/cranky-on-the-web-march-7-12/comment-page-1/#comment-96331</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cranky on the Web (March 7-12) by CF</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/VEmoQLS66RQ/</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4665#comment-96330</guid>
		<description>Actually, the reason US Airways is selling the Embraer 190s is because those are the only ones they have flexibility with.  They needed to reduce capacity but under their contracts, those are the only ones they could have ditched easily so that's what happened.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the reason US Airways is selling the Embraer 190s is because those are the only ones they have flexibility with.  They needed to reduce capacity but under their contracts, those are the only ones they could have ditched easily so that&#8217;s what happened.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u5msDbpvf7zIdMwzV0ZQVayUFUA/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u5msDbpvf7zIdMwzV0ZQVayUFUA/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u5msDbpvf7zIdMwzV0ZQVayUFUA/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u5msDbpvf7zIdMwzV0ZQVayUFUA/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=VEmoQLS66RQ:MV5Q5sfGMRk:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/VEmoQLS66RQ" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/13/cranky-on-the-web-march-7-12/comment-page-1/#comment-96330</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cranky on the Web (March 7-12) by CF</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/E1oSv8fLdMI/</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4665#comment-96329</guid>
		<description>Southwest still has 25 737-500s flying, but you must have seen a 737-300.  Southwest has repainted the entire fleet except for three 737-300s which are going to stay in the old colors to commemorate the first three cities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Southwest still has 25 737-500s flying, but you must have seen a 737-300.  Southwest has repainted the entire fleet except for three 737-300s which are going to stay in the old colors to commemorate the first three cities.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6UqRpIMZlP7jK8Cvlp_V0UeGbYE/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6UqRpIMZlP7jK8Cvlp_V0UeGbYE/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6UqRpIMZlP7jK8Cvlp_V0UeGbYE/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6UqRpIMZlP7jK8Cvlp_V0UeGbYE/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=E1oSv8fLdMI:9LPr8WdNcFs:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/E1oSv8fLdMI" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/13/cranky-on-the-web-march-7-12/comment-page-1/#comment-96329</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by OldAirlineGuy</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/pLTSrfR5VN4/</link>
		<dc:creator>OldAirlineGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96327</guid>
		<description>Mat,
There's a little more invlved than just gate agents not wanting to redo the paperwork.  At the large airport where I worked a returning international flight had to get the permission of airport operations, Customs/Immigration (ICE) and USDA for passengers to be allowed to disembark and anything new (such as fresh catering).  If the FIS facility was closed and and not all of the parties could be reached that was it ... passengers had to sit and wait while we struggled to make phone calls or get hold of someone.  Before you say the airline was not telling the truth please do your homework.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mat,<br />
There&#8217;s a little more invlved than just gate agents not wanting to redo the paperwork.  At the large airport where I worked a returning international flight had to get the permission of airport operations, Customs/Immigration (ICE) and USDA for passengers to be allowed to disembark and anything new (such as fresh catering).  If the FIS facility was closed and and not all of the parties could be reached that was it &#8230; passengers had to sit and wait while we struggled to make phone calls or get hold of someone.  Before you say the airline was not telling the truth please do your homework.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_2WI8zkkklqTN8nj5TBfwrFXmbI/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_2WI8zkkklqTN8nj5TBfwrFXmbI/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_2WI8zkkklqTN8nj5TBfwrFXmbI/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/_2WI8zkkklqTN8nj5TBfwrFXmbI/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=pLTSrfR5VN4:gAjvpIFNukU:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/pLTSrfR5VN4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96327</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An Exclusive Look at Bird Strikes by TG SEO » A Resource For Information Visualisation &amp; Infographics</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/qqWwHLcuCzk/</link>
		<dc:creator>TG SEO » A Resource For Information Visualisation &amp; Infographics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=3519#comment-96320</guid>
		<description>[...] The Cranky Flyer looks at how often bird strikes occur [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Cranky Flyer looks at how often bird strikes occur [...]</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Cd0e_N3VXZeDUmDQqa6pV272mhM/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Cd0e_N3VXZeDUmDQqa6pV272mhM/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Cd0e_N3VXZeDUmDQqa6pV272mhM/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Cd0e_N3VXZeDUmDQqa6pV272mhM/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=qqWwHLcuCzk:xzvSvbdj97U:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/qqWwHLcuCzk" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2009/09/03/an-exclusive-look-at-bird-strikes/comment-page-1/#comment-96320</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by Mat</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/2lBKoh4p7FI/</link>
		<dc:creator>Mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96319</guid>
		<description>Except the airline was not telling you the truth. They could have let you back into the terminal. Now, when they boarded you they'd have had to re-do all the international paperwork, THAT"s what the gate agents were trying to avoid.
What does "cleared for an international flight" even mean? It's just something they made up because it was more convenient to have people sit on the plane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except the airline was not telling you the truth. They could have let you back into the terminal. Now, when they boarded you they&#8217;d have had to re-do all the international paperwork, THAT&#8221;s what the gate agents were trying to avoid.<br />
What does &#8220;cleared for an international flight&#8221; even mean? It&#8217;s just something they made up because it was more convenient to have people sit on the plane.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Q7Art8ye-wLBT8fmacr2FMY1YeE/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Q7Art8ye-wLBT8fmacr2FMY1YeE/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Q7Art8ye-wLBT8fmacr2FMY1YeE/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Q7Art8ye-wLBT8fmacr2FMY1YeE/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=2lBKoh4p7FI:wBUmW2r9afE:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/2lBKoh4p7FI" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96319</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by Mat</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/y3ea2Ow-nP4/</link>
		<dc:creator>Mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96318</guid>
		<description>Plus - in my opinion, slots are not really the issue. Slots cause delays, but rarely do slots cause a 3 hour plane sit. Mostly because slots cause EDCTs to be issued, and while these can be wildly inaccurate, for them to be 3 hours off is rare indeed.
Most of the big sits are weather or common sense (Rochester). Summer thunderstorms cause stopped departures, which if you have a lot of traffic on the taxiways anyway pushes you to 3 hours. Winter weather where planes are pushed into an operating environment that doesn't support actual traffic movement - "push and forget".
It would be interesting to do the root cause analysis of each of the over 3 hour sits per year. My guess is a significant number of those could have been mitigated before people got on the plane (and not by cancelling :-).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Plus &#8211; in my opinion, slots are not really the issue. Slots cause delays, but rarely do slots cause a 3 hour plane sit. Mostly because slots cause EDCTs to be issued, and while these can be wildly inaccurate, for them to be 3 hours off is rare indeed.<br />
Most of the big sits are weather or common sense (Rochester). Summer thunderstorms cause stopped departures, which if you have a lot of traffic on the taxiways anyway pushes you to 3 hours. Winter weather where planes are pushed into an operating environment that doesn&#8217;t support actual traffic movement &#8211; &#8220;push and forget&#8221;.<br />
It would be interesting to do the root cause analysis of each of the over 3 hour sits per year. My guess is a significant number of those could have been mitigated before people got on the plane (and not by cancelling :-).</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/4olSPKWZUXt-hfyb51c_-FMblgw/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/4olSPKWZUXt-hfyb51c_-FMblgw/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/4olSPKWZUXt-hfyb51c_-FMblgw/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/4olSPKWZUXt-hfyb51c_-FMblgw/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=y3ea2Ow-nP4:f-3Ka_4kUCc:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/y3ea2Ow-nP4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96318</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Kate Hanni and I Talk About Delays, We Disagree (Part Two) by Mat</title>
		<link>http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~3/8XhH1r0jCvs/</link>
		<dc:creator>Mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4689#comment-96316</guid>
		<description>Generally speaking I don't agree that this will lead to mass cancellations. Although I do agree there may be some cancellations, it's not going to be a lot because, in the end, the airline still has to move the crews and the planes. Never under-estimate how much an airline is an aircraft operating organisation and how little it is a customer service company.
The first effect will be that companies will not "push and forget" an aircraft. They'll hold passengers at the gate and board them later. At some airports with chronic problems they will, eventually, have to start assigning push slot times. JFK - I'm looking a you.
So it is only in the most extreme circumstances that a plane will be on the taxiways for 2+ hours because, now they are sufficiently motivated, there are ways for the airlines to address the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Generally speaking I don&#8217;t agree that this will lead to mass cancellations. Although I do agree there may be some cancellations, it&#8217;s not going to be a lot because, in the end, the airline still has to move the crews and the planes. Never under-estimate how much an airline is an aircraft operating organisation and how little it is a customer service company.<br />
The first effect will be that companies will not &#8220;push and forget&#8221; an aircraft. They&#8217;ll hold passengers at the gate and board them later. At some airports with chronic problems they will, eventually, have to start assigning push slot times. JFK &#8211; I&#8217;m looking a you.<br />
So it is only in the most extreme circumstances that a plane will be on the taxiways for 2+ hours because, now they are sufficiently motivated, there are ways for the airlines to address the problem.</p>

<p><a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/UwFlhS8sDoTPSs60CrrYAovPMck/0/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/UwFlhS8sDoTPSs60CrrYAovPMck/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a><br/>
<a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/UwFlhS8sDoTPSs60CrrYAovPMck/1/da"><img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/UwFlhS8sDoTPSs60CrrYAovPMck/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.crankyflier.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?a=8XhH1r0jCvs:zAxGc93bn5w:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/crankyflier_Comments?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/crankyflier_Comments/~4/8XhH1r0jCvs" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/12/kate-hanni-and-i-talk-about-delays-we-disagree-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-96316</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss><!-- Dynamic page generated in 1.485 seconds. --><!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2010-03-14 13:18:49 -->
