DieselDragRacer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Posts
- 11,056
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=77917.blog
"Your airline seat may not have much padding, but the airline's schedule sure does." That's from Scott McCartney, The Middle Seat Columnist at The Wall Street Journal, who tackles the subject of schedule padding in his most-recent column. In his column, which runs under the headline "Why a six-hour flight now takes seven," McCartney writes: "Across the airline industry, carriers have been adding minutes to 'block times' — the scheduled durations —baking delays into trips so that late flights officially arrive 'on-time' and operations run better because flights pull into gates more often on schedule."
McCARTNEY'S FULL COLUMN: Why a six-hour flight now takes seven
McCartney writes that he examined "50 different domestic flights on nine major airlines, including some regional-jet partners, found scheduled flights times were 17 minutes, or 10%, longer in airline schedules for this March compared to March 1996 schedules. … Only five of the 50 flights examined had the same scheduled block time or less."
And even the broad flight cuts made during the recession apparently haven't diminished the practice, even though those cuts have reduced congestion at many airports. "Last year, most airlines added padding to scores of flights," McCartney writes.
So, why do airlines pad their schedules? McCartney says "for some airlines, longer scheduled times for flights reflects the reality of inefficiency in the nation's air travel system, which often can't handle the volume of planes without delay, especially when bad weather hits." For others, McCartney says it's simply a way to improve on-time ratings measured by the Department of Transportation, which counts a flight as "on-time" if it arrives at the gate within 15 minutes of its scheduled time.
Today's talker: Is padding schedules an acceptable practice? Some say "yes," since it accurately reflects how long a flight typically takes when weather, congestion and other factors are considered. Others say "no," arguing the goal instead should be making operations more efficient instead of adding time to schedules. What do you think? Share your thoughts.
"Your airline seat may not have much padding, but the airline's schedule sure does." That's from Scott McCartney, The Middle Seat Columnist at The Wall Street Journal, who tackles the subject of schedule padding in his most-recent column. In his column, which runs under the headline "Why a six-hour flight now takes seven," McCartney writes: "Across the airline industry, carriers have been adding minutes to 'block times' — the scheduled durations —baking delays into trips so that late flights officially arrive 'on-time' and operations run better because flights pull into gates more often on schedule."
McCARTNEY'S FULL COLUMN: Why a six-hour flight now takes seven
McCartney writes that he examined "50 different domestic flights on nine major airlines, including some regional-jet partners, found scheduled flights times were 17 minutes, or 10%, longer in airline schedules for this March compared to March 1996 schedules. … Only five of the 50 flights examined had the same scheduled block time or less."
And even the broad flight cuts made during the recession apparently haven't diminished the practice, even though those cuts have reduced congestion at many airports. "Last year, most airlines added padding to scores of flights," McCartney writes.
So, why do airlines pad their schedules? McCartney says "for some airlines, longer scheduled times for flights reflects the reality of inefficiency in the nation's air travel system, which often can't handle the volume of planes without delay, especially when bad weather hits." For others, McCartney says it's simply a way to improve on-time ratings measured by the Department of Transportation, which counts a flight as "on-time" if it arrives at the gate within 15 minutes of its scheduled time.
Today's talker: Is padding schedules an acceptable practice? Some say "yes," since it accurately reflects how long a flight typically takes when weather, congestion and other factors are considered. Others say "no," arguing the goal instead should be making operations more efficient instead of adding time to schedules. What do you think? Share your thoughts.
