[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Much has been written here about weather delays and the resulting misery. Under the status quo, the consequences of weather delays are borne, almost entirely, by the passenger. When it comes to bad weather, it’s time for the government to take the airlines down from their pedestal. Obviously, no one should expect planes to operate when the given airport is engulfed by a blizzard or an icy runway. However these conditions always do subside. Snow is plowed and runways become free of ice. If the price of airline tickets are to be affordable to most Americans then, unfortunately, the airline passenger must accept that he is on his own during periods when runways are unusable and the weather renders flying dangerous. Under these circumstances: No hotels for the stranded passenger, no food vouchers, etc. But what happens when the storm has passed; the runways are usable, and the weather at the destination airport is clear? At this point is travel now a privilege restricted to Business, First Class, and ultra-Platnum passengers? Judging from the number of people sleeping on the airport floor, it certainly seems that way. Like the weather, the ability to precisely forcast the beginning and end of a future financial downturn is equally elusive. That is why, since the Great Depression, banks are required to maintain cash surpluses sufficient to cover hypothesized loan defaults and mass withdrawals. At the present time US-based airlines are under no such similar requirement. In theory, an airline can have two planes in its fleet, and operate both planes in regular service seven days a week. Unlike the banks, there is no requirement upon airlines to, always, have an unused plane in a hangar or have a standing arrangement, with a charter airline, to have aircraft available on short notice. Instead some passengers are left with the choice of continuing to sleep on an airport floor, for upwards of 5 to 7 days, or forgo a ticket worth a few hundred dollars and pay, still more, money for alternate transportation. As I’ve indicated, it is within the power of the airlines to make sufficient aircraft available, following a period of severe weather, so that US airports do not need to look like refugee camps for days on end. It is not unreasonable to require the airlines to have arrangements in place wherein there would be “spare” aircraft available equal in number to a given percentage of revenue passengers carried during the previous year. Will ticket prices go up? Almost certainly. However it is nothing but outright fraud to take $99 from someone; not offer a full refund; not offer a hotel voucher; and know, full well, that bad weather may result in a passenger not reaching their destination for days on end.

[airhead]

I completely agree with you. Some major bugs need to be worked out in figuring out how to avoid the refugee camp environment. The problem with having an extra aircraft, is having an extra crew on stand by to operate the flight. I am sure the price of tickets will go up if these expenses are added. But no airline will do that since they are competing with other low cost carriers. The government needs to regulate this industry since it effects EVERYONE in this country. Ticket fares also need to be simplified so that the average consumer and employee, with training, may comprehend the rules. Additionally, the local city governments that take leases from the airlines for having operations at the airports, should step up and do something to protect consumers from 3rd world country scenarios. And I am not referring to beefing up security with more cops but placing more restrictions on airlines' ability to run their business they way they have been. I think a good example would be to require an x number of extra aircraft available with crew for so many flights that are on the schedule.

[ChrisH]

The problem with this, is that once the weather clears, it is often then becomes ATC that results on the further delays. The system gets backed up, and that is also something that the airlines cannot control. I agree it sucks to be stranded in an airport, for what can sometimes be days, especially in the Northeast, when these severe weather problems occur. It, however, is not the airlines fault that this weather did occur. If the airlines have to have tons of other airplanes and crews, etc., standing by, then you can guarantee the price for tickets, bags, and everything else will go up to cover that cost. Even at the low cost carriers, considering if this were made a rule, they would be required to do the same, increasing their costs.

I see what you are trying to say, and it makes sense (the idea, at least), I just doubt it will ever become reality.

[jimworcs]

I agree that the concept is good, but unlikely to be implemented due to costs as the airlines with international operations would argue that their competitors would not be covered by the same laws. It is also the case that after major weather delays, the problem is often not aircraft availability, but rather aircraft in the "wrong location", crew availability and ATC and Landing slots that pose the problems.

However, there is a problem of airlines which have the excuse of poor weather, thus having no availability, who will schedule the recovery entirely at their own operational efficiency, rather than a "all hands on deck" emergency response to get as many people home as possible. There is also a lack of flexibility by the airlines in helping passengers, so that for example, they could waive rules relating to re-booking, alternative routing and refunds when a major weather crisis throws peoples plans into chaos.

I think regulation is the answer, and a more aggressive approach by the DOT to investigate when a particular airline performs badly compared their peers. The JetBlue debacle in which passengers spents 8+ trapped on a plane and refused permission to get off has significantly changed the way that airline handles such emergencies. Publicity and regulatory pressure will work.

If you want to compare how airlines respond to emergencies, google the response of WestJet and AirCanada to the recent extreme weather in Canada. WestJet clearly responded superbly to the problem, whilst Air Canada's response was lamentable. ~This illustrates the biggest frustration of travellers.. the airlines inflexbility, lack of communication and "couldn't care less" attitude. WestJet, a young upstart, only about a decade old and keen to prove it can do it better, handled the crisis exceptionally well. AirCanada, tired, complacent and arrogant failed its customers completely and has still not recovered.

This is what happens with the likes of Delta, American, United, etc... they are too large, complacent and monopolisitic in attitude and should be broken up. The loss of jobs will be temporary and their replacements will be better, more nibble and more customer focussed.

[Leatherboy2006]

considering how much a airplane costs I think it would be unreasonable to expect the airlines to keep a spare airplane. I have been cat sitting for a lady in my building who is a F/A for American and has been stuck in the weather, her two day trip has turned into as of today a 5 day trip. Due to weather in Chicago and other areas they have been shuttling her and her co-workers around. Just when they think they might be getting back to Dallas another storm has rerouted them. Everyone just has to be patience(something lacking in the world today) and be glad there has been no weather related major plane losses due to impatience and rushing