Delta and JetBlue Kick Themselves in the Butt

March 8, 2010
Two Airlines Seek Relief From New Rule
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

JetBlue and Delta want temporary exemptions from a new government rule that
will limit the time airline passengers can be held on the tarmac. They say
delays caused by the closing of a main runway at Kennedy International
Airport in New York could cost them millions in fines.

The Department of Transportation's new rule, which goes into effect April
29, orders airlines to let passengers off planes delayed for three hours or
face hefty fines. In December, 22 flights nationwide were delayed for more
than three hours from gate to departure. The new rule could fine an airline
$27,500 per passenger for that kind of delay. For an average Boeing 737 with
a full load of passengers, the fine could be around $3.5 million.

JetBlue and Delta are the biggest operators at Kennedy, which was among the
worst airports in the nation for delays last year. One of its four runways
closed for repairs on March 1, and the work is already causing delays.

May is the first full month the new rule will be in effect, and is also the
start of the peak travel season. The airlines have already cut their
schedules by about 10 percent at Kennedy to help ease delays until the
runway reopens in July.

"Although JetBlue has already taken several steps to minimize the impact of
this closure on its J.F.K. operations, this exemption is necessary to ensure
that JetBlue is not penalized if J.F.K. becomes gridlocked at peak operating
times," the airline said in its request to the Transportation Department.

Construction and other disruptions at a major airport often have a ripple
effect because pilots, flight attendants and airplanes are delayed getting
to other cities.

"One late flight may delay three additional flights if the resources connect
differently, and two or more late flights may delay several more flights,"
JetBlue said.

Major cities that are most effected by delays at Kennedy are Los Angeles,
San Francisco and Orlando, Fla.

In "Sancho Panza"
wrote:

Two Airlines Seek Relief From New Rule

How have they kicked themselves in the butt?

Apparently, some airlines simply intend to cancel flights that might be
delayed, which will get them off the hook so far as this new regulation
is concerned, but certainly won't do their customers any good.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In Bert Hyman
wrote:

Apparently, some airlines simply intend to cancel flights that might
be delayed, which will get them off the hook so far as this new
regulation is concerned, but certainly won't do their customers any
good.

Several airlines, including Fort Worth-based American and
Houston-based Continental, say they will cancel flights rather
than risk paying stiff penalties for delaying passengers on the
runway.

Continental's CEO told investors Tuesday that the airline will
opt to cancel flights rather than chance being fined.

Aviation consultant Denny Kelly expects other airlines to follow
suit.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-bea...-87181947.html
http://tinyurl.com/ydtkfj2
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
.. .
In "Sancho Panza"
wrote:

Two Airlines Seek Relief From New Rule

How have they kicked themselves in the butt?

By making it clear that they expect major delays but dispute the penalty
payments. Their customers who have a choice are likely to opt for
alternatives.

In "Sancho Panza"
wrote:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
.. .
In "Sancho Panza"
wrote:

Two Airlines Seek Relief From New Rule

How have they kicked themselves in the butt?

By making it clear that they expect major delays but dispute the
penalty payments. Their customers who have a choice are likely to opt
for alternatives.

Do you think that they're unique in expecting delays, or just unique in
saying that they expect delays?

Should someone who chose another airline expect anything different?

Would they be better off with American or Continental, who've already
announced that they'll simply cancel any flights that might be delayed
in order to avoid any possible fines?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Their customers who have a choice are likely to opt for alternatives.

So you live in Manhattan and need to get to Rio? Budapest? Atlanta?

Bert Hyman wrote:
In "Sancho Panza"
wrote:

Two Airlines Seek Relief From New Rule

How have they kicked themselves in the butt?

Apparently, some airlines simply intend to cancel flights that might be
delayed, which will get them off the hook so far as this new regulation
is concerned, but certainly won't do their customers any good.

Remember, it's three hours they have to get the plane off the ground!
They _should_ just cancel the flight if they are so inept that they are
loading up planes when they know that there are likely going to be delays.

The airlines are just whining. They don't really want to cancel a flight
and deal with refunds and rebookings, they just don't like dealing with
the logistics of complying with that rule--it's inconvenient.