Why Airlines Need to Focus on Winning the War of Words on Congestion
The Department of Transportation just released its latest air travel consumer report for April. It was a stellar month, but that had nothing to do with the just-implemented "passenger bill of rights." Instead, it highlights the need for airlines to get more proactive at winning the war of words on congestion.
You'll recall that the passenger bill of rights mandates that airlines will face stiff fines for holding people on airplanes for longer than 3 hours on the ground. This went into effect at the very end of April, so this was our last chance to see how the airlines did without facing penalties. On time percentage for the month was incredibly high. Alaska Airlines even slipped over the 90 percent threshold to end at 90.9 percent. US Airways had an incredible 88.6 percent with United right on its heels at 88.5 percent. In fifth? The best performing regional of the bunch was... Atlantic Southeast?!? They apparently are really making strides.
At the very bottom were two regionals tied for last. American Eagle and Comair both sat in the cellar... with an 82.3 percent on-time rate. That's nothing to sneeze at. Nice work by just about everyone. What caused this rash of stellar performances? Was it the impending introduction of the passenger rights bill?
No way. While most airlines had already implemented their plans by this time, it really was all thanks to good weather. Spring is a nice time to fly in that it's after the big snowstorms hit and usually before the thunderstorms disrupt travel.
In Philadelphia, for example, where congestion reigns supreme, there were only two days with thunderstorms and only six days with more than 1/10 of an inch of precipitation. The usually snarled northeast airports all saw similar weather patterns. It made for some easy flying. Atlanta? Four days with thunderstorms and only 3 days with more than 1/10 of an inch of precipitation. Dallas? Three days with thunderstorms and only 3 days with more than 1/10 of an inch of precipitation.
The upshot here is that nearly every airport easily saw on time performance above 80 percent. It's amazing what happens when weather is good, because it keeps permitted arrival rates at airports steady. JFK saw 76 percent of flights arrive on time during its worst hour of the day. Philly never dipped below 77 percent.
So when the weather is good, airlines are capable of running very good operations with the current infrastructure. The problem, of course, is that when weather goes bad -- we're talking thunderstorms, snowstorms, and in some places, fog -- airline performance goes down with it. Of course, nobody bothers to focus on the good weather months but rather on the bad ones because it makes for a better story.
Airlines have the opportunity to explain exactly what this means to people. They are scheduling for when the weather is relatively good. And really, they should. If they scheduled for when weather was bad, there would be a lot of empty airport capacity for much of the month. Should they cut back at all? Well, they could, but as long as they're allowed to fly as many flights as they do, they aren't going to do that voluntarily. If the government wants to implement stronger flight caps at some airports, it can do that.
But where the airlines can really excel here is in terms of educating people what that means. The math is simple. The fewer seats and fewer flights out there, the more fares go up. It's supply and demand 101. So if the airlines can schedule the way they do, things will be tough when weather goes bad, but fares will still lower than if those flights were never scheduled in the first place.
Most people don't realize that and instead simply like to point fingers.