Airline Delays

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein was online Wednesday, Oct. 3 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss solutions to airline flight delays and congestion.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Read today's column: A Solution That Can't Get Off the Ground

The transcript follows.

About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.

His column archive is online here.

____________________

Southern Maryland: The first time I flew over twenty years ago, it was a wonderful experience. Back then my usual mode of transportation outside of a car was a Greyhound bus. Fast forward to 2005, the last time I flew, I thought I was on a Greyhound bus with wings.

Steven Pearlstein: Actually, the bus is a more comfortable experience and, given the recent record, not a whole lot slower.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Almost without fail the AA Eagle flights operate late. Five of my six most recent flights between Bos and DCA ran anywhere from 30 mins to 3+ hours late...always AFTER a phone call to AA, prior to heading to airport, says 'flight is operating on time.' Why are airlines allowed to be so blatantly dishonest? Someone inside AA knows full well the 'real' operating times well in advance of any flight's departure. Passengers are repeatedly misled. Has anyone tried to calculate the 'lost business productivity hours and wage costs' precipitated by such egregious corporate behaviour? From all appearances the gov't cares little; surely the airlines care even less!

Steven Pearlstein: Maybe there are some fraud statutes that might apply, although they are probably preempted by federal aviation law.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years, the absolute deterioration of service from what were once very fine levels. Obviously, lower fares are a big factor, and I know there are lots of people who value the low fares more than the service. But in every other market we know of, there are gradations of quality that consumers get to chose from. What is it about airlines that at least a couple can't break from the pack-llike mindset and say it isn't going to be the cheapest but it is going to be the best -- and just work like hell to deliver reasonably good comfort, service, convenience and treat customers like customers.

One consideration are the websites that always display flights on the basis of the cheapest first. The airlines that want to break from the pack could work with these folks so that customers who want flights displayed in a different format could chose that. That way, if you prefer Airline X and it is within 10 or 15 percent of the lowest price competitor, I know that I would chose that carrier. and I think I'm not alone.

The thing is that the airlines never listen to customers. They just don't. They look at surveys, but in the end they are prisoners of their computers that fill planes (very effectively, I might add) and measure success totally on the basis of load factors and revenue per passenger mile. The rest is irrelevant to them.

For example, you'd think some airline types might be on this web chat and engage in the conversation. But they never do. They all think they've heard it all before, they know the answers, customers have never in the history of man ever come up with a good idea, etc. And this, despite the financial drubbing they've taken in recent years, which in other industries usually leads to a bit of humility.

_______________________

Maryland and NC through USairways: I traveled at least once in two weeks from BWI or Dulles to CLT/NC through USAir, the delays were often and bad enough that the time I got home was close to my driving time which is 7 hours, and I often late for work due to the delay. One of my co-workers took Delta, commuting from NY quit his job because of the flight delays.

Majority of the time there were no early notice or no notice at all. I needed to check with the counter staff finding out what happened. The "new" departure time was sometimes updated after the flight was delayed for at least 45 minutes.

Coincidentally, last 2 weeks' flight was not delayed, hope because of the Federal agency was watching it...I just guessed.

The statistics are 8/10 delays from Charlotte to BWI/Dulles, and 5/10 delays from BWI/Dulles to Charlotte.

Steven Pearlstein: A lot of this, day to day, is out of the airlines control (at least on the delays, although not on informing passengers about delays). There are just too many planes on the skyways and the approaches, taking off and landing. But one big reason there are too many is that the airlines have blocked all the reasonable solutions. They'd rather fill the planes, collect the peak-hour fares and then force customers to queue up. What do they care? They get paid the same money either way. Their load factors are the same either way. Their revenue per passenger mile is the same either way. And because all the airlines are in the same boat, they don't suffer any competitive disadvantage vis a vis other airlines, which is the only competition they seem to care about.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: It's not just congestion pricing, the whole airline pricing system is totally opposite of "normal" pricing strategy. Normally you would charge a premium for a guaranteed reserved seat, but the airlines instead charge more for a last minute ticket. All just to charge more from a business traveler who just expenses it anyway, but it probably hurts last minute trips by ordinary people.

Steven Pearlstein: That's exactly right. In order to extract every last marginal dollar from the willing business traveler, they have set up a pricing system that distorts all sorts of other things. I believe this pricing system they use is too clever by half. I believe it maximizes short-term revenue but not profit and erodes long term revenue and profitability. It would be one thing if only one airline used the techniques. But when they all use the same techniques, the competitive advantage erodes and it puts the whole industry in a downward service spiral that, in the end, will drive people to other forms of transportation, or "upstart" airlines that offer service, which is beginning to happen.

_______________________

Santa Fe, N.M.: Certainly congestion pricing should work and should be put into effect. But the basic problem is that there are not enough terminals, runways and taxiways for the numbers of airplanes now in use, most of them commercial.

This, like collapsing bridges and potholed roads, is part of the fallout of the political fantasy of ever-reducing taxes. If we want a civil society, we have to pay for it.

And, not to leave the airlines out, why do they think it's a good idea to squeeze passengers into uncomfortable seats, expect them to pay for airline-quality food and junk snacks, and love the experience? That's after they've been everything but stripsearched by the TSA.

Steven Pearlstein: I know this is intuitive, but you may, in fact be wrong.

This is the standard answer that highway builders give about highways and port operators give about docks and cranes -- we just need to invest more to keep up with demand. But in an economic sense, that's not right. Demand is not some vague number unrelated to other things. It is demand at a certain price. And right now, as I tried to point out today, the price is too low for the key thing we are talking about: peak hour availability. If we would price that correctly -- that is, at the price of building new peak-hour capaicty -- then demand would most likely go down. It might go down to the point that you don't need to build capacity. But if the price at which that market "clears" (that is, matches supply and demand) is such that it is higher than the cost of adding the next increment of capacity, then great -- you have the money right there to add the capacity. That's how efficient markets work. When the price signal indicates the need to new capacity, someone comes in and builds it because they know they can make money. And the same would happen in aviation if the proceeds from congestion pricing would go the those in charge of adding capacity--the FAA in terms of capacity in the skyways, and the airports in terms of runways and terminals. That is why there should be two kinds of peak congestion pricing -- one fee charged by the FAA for air traffic control services, and another by the airport. Its not that hard to do, really.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Thank you for your interesting opinion article on airline delays. The private propeller plane pilots are opposed to user fees because they fear that similar fees will be applied to them. In Europe and Australia, user fees have largely eliminated private aviation due to the high costs imposed on private pilots. This is the slippery slope of regulation that also threatens other individual activities such as the shooting sports and model rocketry. These pilots look forward to a future era when individual accomplishments are outlawed by legal structures that only allow large organizations to do anything. A rebellion on this dimension is also occurring in the broadcasting area with the movement to legalize microradio neighborhood broadcasting on the AM and FM bands. Please be assured that individual technologists, such as me, will not surrender our activities and freedoms.

Steven Pearlstein: This is the standard, misinformed line from the prop pilots NOBODY wants to make you pay a fee. Let me say that again: NOBODY. But like handgun owners who rush to the defense of people owning bazookas and sub-machine guns, you have been bamboozled by the corporate aviation industry into believing that your intersts and their interests coincide. They don't. Most prop planes don't use the air traffic control system. They don't use major airports. And there is no reason for them to pay the same user fees as corporate jets and commercial airlines. Of course you know all this, but you insist on using the "slippery slope" or "camel's nose under the tent" argument -- that is, that you don't trust democracy and the political system to be able to act rationally and disintinguish between millions of weekend pilots and a handful of corporate jetsters. So your basic view is that everyone involved in politics is a fool. So let me return the favor: I think you are a fool.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I don't understand why rural lawmakers are against congestion pricing at airports. If prices are higher at congested airports, it would increase the incentive for airlines to have hubs in less crowded areas in order to spread out the airline traffic. This would help the rural areas by moving more flights closer to them. Is there a particular reason that 50 percent of all flights need to go to through NY, Boston, DC?

Steven Pearlstein: No, airlines respond to market demand. And if you have congestion pricing, what it will do is lead airlines to use their big planes at the congested airports at peak hours, rather than using a lot of smaller regional jets, which are part of the cause of the problem now. In a sense, congestion pricing forces the system to use its limited resources most efficiently. The problem for rural areas is that they don't provide enough traffic to justify the use of big planes. So the rational response from the airlines will be to move service from rural areas into hubs to off-peak hours, which will mean less convenience for those in rural areas.

Now if you want, you can tilt the system to compensate for this a bit. How? Imagine the way congestion pricing is implemented is to auction off landing slots. Airlines bid on the slots every couple of years. And what you could do is say that if an airline is bidding on a slot for flight from a rural area, the system will bump that bid up, so that if the airline bid $5,000, it will be recorded as a $6,000 bid. (I'm making the numbers up, but you take the point).

Or if you use another form of congestion pricing, which is just to set a higher price that is adjusted over time until it becomes the "clearing" price", then you could offer discounts off that price for flights from rural areas, so that airlines might not have such a big incentive to only use their biggest planes.

_______________________

Great Falls, Va.: Your use of Kahn's analogy served your column well, but I initially thought you were going in a different direction. Couldn't the same cow analogy be used to support a more sensible pricing structure for airfares? I'd be willing to pay $20 more for the window than the middle seat, and another $20 for the aisle. I might be willing to pay a premium to be closer to the front, depending on the urgency of my business when we land. Right now (aside from first class and the occasional business class fares), the pricing structure is somewhere between the uniform price for each cut of meat, and the proverbial dartboard approach.

Steven Pearlstein: Yes, it could.Obviously, they do that in one sense: business class versus coach. But they could be much more clever in using price to allow people to chose a service range. But they are very stubborn about this. They insist on having a limited number of business class seats that they sell at five and six times the cost of coach seat, when they could probably do just as well offering many more business class seats at, say, double or 2.5 times the coach seat.

why don't they do this? Because they are so determined not to give up the extra revenue they receive from the current business class passenger, who is willing to pay 5 times. They won't give up a bird in the hand to get two in the bush. They're just very uncreative, risk averse. And they don't care about the fact that customers are unhappy and, as a result, won't show any loyalty to an airline or even this mode of transportation.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Pearlstein,

This is a comment on your article - I think it is too long for your online session today. Hope it is interesting.

I enjoyed your article in today's Washington Post although I don't much care for Alfred Kahn's "steak-hamburger" analogy.

Mr. Kahn was involved in the deregulation of airline service in the late 70's. While you can certainly argue that this was a time when access to flying was opened to many for the first time, there were risks not properly addressed by Mr. Kahn and his smart remarks when questioned on the topic. Here we see again, how the real issues can be mis-stated and never challenged by the writers.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls access to a number of major airports through the allocation of slots which are periodically auctioned when new ones become available. These are expensive. These also already constitute congestion pricing. If there are too many flights into an airport, reduce the number of slots. Oops! This won't generate more money for someone, now will it.

Delays have many causes - some weather related and some not. If arrivals fall victim to weather related delays, then the planned arrivals are not the culprit. On a good day, traffic at the major airports is heavy and things need to go as planned for a smooth operation. If there are more arrivals than Air Traffic Control (ATC) can handle, reduce the number of slots. The FAA has already mandated certain flight limitations at Chicago O'Hare and successfully reduced delays.

The FAA has increased capacity of the National Airspace System in the enroute area by some careful changes in procedures and airspace design. There will be more in the future. The touted NextGen proposal will make use of improved surveillance capabilities although this is one of the most overblown and expensive proposals ever. Someone, of course, will have to pay for it. A short aside. Improving traffic flow through the enroute system won't solve most congestion problems. Congestion occurs when too many aircraft arrive AT THE AIRPORT which has to accommodate takeoffs and landings. The solution to this problem can only be more runways. There are physical limitations on how closely aircraft can follow each other for landing. Wake turbulence is only one. More runways will do more to increase the capacity of an airport than anything else.

Congestion pricing for the airlines is going to increase costs - that is 100 percent certain. With deregulation, you could find airlines scheduling flights in popular city pairs within minutes of each other. When flights were listed in schedules, the earliest flights were listed first. If American went from Washington to Miami at noon, Eastern would list a departure at 11:55 am. There are times of day when the public wants to fly. Business travelers have their own requirements and they are going to pay the freight (well, someone is) to fly home at the end of a business day or depart at 7 a.m. for New York to work all day. I believe this solution is going to spread out costs more than flights. The carriers will fly when people want to fly, period.

The issue of airspace requirements for business jets (wait until all these Very Light Jets start taking off) is a real problem and the FAA is going to have to deal with it. The FAA has considerable talent on board. It is unfortunate that they don't use it so well.

Robert

I was a pilot with Eastern Air Lines from 1973-1974 and 1978-1989 (employee strike) with a four and one-half year layoff in there. I also retired from the FAA as an Aerospace Engineer in the Aircraft Certification Service. As an instructor pilot in the USAF amd 11,000 hours of total flight time, I have considerable experience working with ATC. There are many different actions required to satisfy demand for use of the National Airspace System and it is unfortunate that people like Alfred Kahn have agendas and obviously lack the understanding of what must be done.

The NextGen proposals from the FAA need to have very clear specificity as to the end state of the system - to maximize efficiency it will be easy to describe the system of the future but the devil is truly in the details as people are fond of saying. I hope they get it right.

Steven Pearlstein: Again, you are making the same mistake by forgetting that when people want to fly depends on the cost of the flight. if you price hamburger and steak the same, they will demand more steak and less hamburger. But if you price them separately, you will get a different level of demand for each one. So you we won't know, in fact, how much real demand there are for peak time travel and off peak until we price this correctly, which means at the marginal cost of adding new capacity.

Will that raise ticket prices. Yes, it will raise peak fares some, although not as much as you think, because the airlines have already raised peak hour fares to capture the "scarcity" premium, as economists call it. Only if the government uses congestion pricing, it means that the government will collect that premium rather than the airlines.

But, to keep with the beef analogy, congestion pricing could also LOWER the cost of off-peak travel, since the land fee for that hour will be very low, since the marginal cost of adding off-peak capacity at most places is zero. Why zero? Because there are unused gates, unused runways, unused approach and takeoff space.

Does this mean we should stop building more runways? Probably not. Because I suspect the fees that can be charged for peak times at the busiest airports exceed the marginal cost of adding capacity. But why shouldn't we let markets sort all this out, as they do in most every other market. Your solution -- just keep building more runways-- is like the highway lobby, that says the solution to traffic congestion is just to keep building more and more roads. And then two years later those are filled up and we build more. Why does that happen. Because the cost of using the roads at peak (steak) is the same as the cost of using roads at midnight. And if you price it right, enough people will change their behavior in response to the price signals that, in fact, you don't have to build new roads, and can actually carry more total traffic than you were before.

That is the theory. And, in fact, that is the experience when it has been tried.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: The FAA has and exercises control of traffic into congested airports - it is called slot allocation. Slot can be bought and sold. They are expensive. The proposal for "congestion pricing" is another way of getting money from the operators and ultimately the passengers.

Steven Pearlstein: Auctioning off slots is one approach to congestion pricing. But the problem with the way slots are auctioned off now is that they are auctioned off only once, and then treated as property by the airlines, which actually buy and sell them. This is bad for two reasons. It negates the congestion pricing, since that requires repeated options every couple of years. And it means that, over time, as the slots become more valuable, the added value of the slots goes not to the government, that could use the money to expand capacity, but to the airline's shareholders. It is a huge scam, on the scale of the similar scam in broadcast licenses, which are now automatically renewed at zero cost rather than rebid ever decade or so.

Worse, airlines use the slot system to keep out competition. If a slot becomes available at Washington Reagan, for example, the dominant carriers there will bid whatever it takes to prevent Jet Blue from getting a toehold at Reagan. Why? Because Jet Blue will offer lower fares. So it is well documented that, as current configured, the slot system is a form of congestion control that allows the airlines to capture all the scarcity premiums, which is why they will fight to the death to make sure it is never changed. The profit they make a slot controlled airports is HUGE! And if you doubt it, look at the cost of a New York to Washington shuttle ticket.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Has there ever been a successful lawsuit against an airline either in regular or small claims court for terrible customer service, delays or stranding on the tarmac?

Considering it takes court action for any thing to change now days, it seems like the only way airlines will improve their service is a court ordered financial penalty.

Steven Pearlstein: The federal law, and the small print on your ticket, make it hard to sue an airline. It is the only business I know of that you have to pay in advance for a service, and when they fail to provide it, they don't have to give you your money back. If there were some recourse, I think the airlines would behave differently. The resource doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of lawsuits, although that is an option. But at least some appeal to some impartial body would be useful.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: Dear Mr. Pearlstein,

The airlines are ridiculous in purposefully ignoring the huge unmet demand for off-peak flights. I am accustomed to traveling, for example, by train overnight, because when traveling, you can't do much but sit and sleep anyway. The current number of actual "red-eye" flights is absolutely pitiful. Many of us are willing even to take short flights in the middle of the night because all modes of transit are least utilized at these times (taxi rides from the airport to your hotel are a breeze at midnight), and travel at such times is extremely efficient.

I have asked the airline industry about this, and the response I received was that there was no demand for off-peak flights. An indisputable fact, apparently. I reckon manipulating supply such that only high-priced peak flights is the real answer, and a pathetically inflexible business model.

I wonder if you ever get tired of writing about the U.S. passenger airline industry. It seems absolutely hopeless. I mean, I cannot fathom how an industry as heavily subsidized as this one (not to mention having a Government-enforced oligopoly) can have most of its companies go bankrupt and struggle to make money.

Incidentally, peak congestion undermines the airlines' unrealistically tight pilot/crew scheduling. A plane sitting around is on thing, but how are personnel compensated for wasting an extra couple of hours during each shift?

All of these problems can be easily solved using tried and true techniques taught at every business school in the country. Cripes, just look at how air-freight is managed!

Thank you! Have a great day.

Steven Pearlstein: Well put.

_______________________

Frustratedville: This is a very timely discussion. I travel a couple of times a year, and am used to some delays, but what happened to us last week really takes the cake. We were scheduled to fly on NWA out of National to Vegas with a connection in Memphis. About 30 minutes before boarding time, we were told there was a slight delay due to the incoming flight from Detroit due to weather. We were told we should still make our connecting flight and we would not be re-booked since weather delays are not their fault. Eventually, the delay became 3 hours and we missed our connection and had to spend the night in Memphis. We were given a reduced room rate ($6 off the regular rate) at a disgusting Holiday Inn and still had to pay for the room in Vegas that we couldn't get to. The NWA reps at the airport would never deviate from their "this is NWA policy" line and were the most unsympathetic customer service people I have ever met. It just really angers me that if it was a mechanical delay, they would have rebooked us through another airline and we would have been on our way, but they chose this way instead. Their loss in the end. We're planning a trip to Asia next year for several people, flying business or first class, and they won't see a penny of it.

Steven Pearlstein: That's a typical story and it shows how far the airlines have fallen in their concern for customers.

_______________________

New York: Thanks for the column. Yet another example of people expecting to get something for free, along with "God given" rights like cheap gas, low cost hurricane insurance, etc.

Steven Pearlstein: Steak for All!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm a little confused, because don't I already pay higher fares to travel at peak times? Is the issue that that money goes to the airlines, instead of into some more general aviation fund?

Steven Pearlstein: Yup, that's the point.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Your outlook (and Outlook) seems rather bleak, especially when you add the one factor I didn't see: the extreme NIMBY pressure against ANY change in flight patterns or frequencies, which we're seeing here in the NY area as they try to loosen up the air space a bit. What do you think could be a breaking/tipping point for real change, considering we're a large country with no real alternative mode of long distance transportation?

Steven Pearlstein: That is a real problem at a lot of congested airports -- it is probably why they are congested and haven't expanded. It is not an easy problem to solve: the downsides of airport expansion are felt very disproportionately by a few people living near airports, but provide small benefits to each of the millions of people who use an airport in a given year. This is the classic public policy dilemma. And it just take real leadership to try to find ways to minimize the downside for the neighbors and find a way to get the beneficiaries to "pay" for some sort of compensation for the losers.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: C'mon, Steve, to say that airliners don't care about their customer's happiness is silly. Of course, they care, but only to a degree.

The intense competition between airlines has made minimizing costs priority number one. In such an atmosphere, somethings got to give and that's been customer service. But a large segment of the flying public doesn't seem to mind. It appears low fares are more important than all else. Put low fares and decent service together and you have a winner -- i.e.

I recently read where Spirit Airlines was considering selling advertising on their flight attendant uniforms, in exchange for the advertiser paying for the uniforms! Europe's Ryan Air is placing advertisements on the backs of seat rests.

What is developing is a two-tier airline system, akin to difference between a Macy's department store and Wal Mart. But not everyone like to shop at Wal Mart and, likewise, some won't fly a cattle-herd low-cost carrier.

Steven Pearlstein: I hope you are right, and that a two or even three tier market starts to develop. But your basic point is right: airlines have got it in their thick skulls that the only thing passengers care about is price. The problem is they don't know that is true, because they haven't tried to offer reasonable alternatives that allow people to make a different choice than the lowest price-no service option that they now all offer.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I made a vow when I retired to only fly in emergencies so today's column is a spectator sport for me. But look, back in the days when I taught calculus, there was a standard problem. Guy has an apartment house. He know from experience that every time he raises the rent x dollars, y apartments become empty. Figure out the best rent. Now certainly airlines have people who can figure such things out. Maybe y is hard to figure out, but there must be a lot of data. Why do they get it wrong?

Usual comment: When I was young and flew a lot, the airlines were heavily regulated. Nice to know the believers in free markets are willing to suffer for their beliefs.

Steven Pearlstein: I knew you'd be for re-regulation. And if we stuck with your scenario, airline pilots would make a million dollars a year, the cost of flying to LA from NY would be $5,000 in coach and no college kid would fly home for Thanksgiving.

Deregulation has been a tremendous success, overall. But it needs to be tweeked now with a better way of financing the public goods (airports, flight control system)that encourages the most efficient use of scarce resources. The problem is that there is not enough market here, not too much, because of all the continuing regulatory and political interference engineered by the special interests.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Pearlstein: you need to be finer-grained when you talk about prop planes. Maybe nobody wants to charge user fees for a Cessna 150, although that plane does have to pay landing fees at big airports, but what about a Cessna Caravan? A Twin Otter? A Dehavilanbd Dash-7? Some of those are airline-quality prop planes, others aren't; and if they are using O'Hare's or JFK's airspace, then of course they need to pay a user fee. I think you're being disingenuous here, or incompletely informed, and this from someone who basically agrees with you.

Steven Pearlstein: Look, I'm not an airplane expert. But most of the people who make a big stink about user fees are weekend flyers in small prop planes that wouldn't have to pay them. That's the key fact.

_______________________

Dayton, Ohio: Steven - how much are we talking about here? A 737 with 150 passengers, leaving La Guardia at 6 p.m. on a Friday. $10/seat? $100/seat?

Steven Pearlstein: I really don't know what would be the clearing price. But as I said before, the change over current fares wouldn't be as great as the critics of congestion pricing suggest, because the airlines are already using peak time pricing on their customers. My guess -- and it is a wild guess -- less than $25.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Forget "congestion pricing" -- there are always powerful people who oppose anything that makes sense if it cuts down on profits or convenience. What -will- make sense to everyone are the near-fatal or real crashes between the planes that keep crowding the skies because the FAA keeps allotting more and more routes. Can't see any other way to stop this delay madness (it is amazing that it hasn't happened yet ... but there's still time).

Steven Pearlstein: The new satellite-based control system will help a lot. But shame on the industry and the government for being so far behind on that. Now we won't have the benefits of it for another decade, even though you have GPS in your rental car.

_______________________

What about Congress?: The actions of the special interests are understandable (though I think the airlines should be big enough to see it would help them in the long run).

But what about Congress? Are they really so hobbled by campaign contributions and the rural state senators? Ted Kennedy was the main co-sponsor of the transportation deregulation initiative of 30 years ago. Why can't something like that happen again?

Steven Pearlstein: Congress is no where on this. They are a bunch of lugheads, really, starting with Chairman Oberstar. They are so afraid of the general aviation lobby, and so in the pocket of their home-state airlines and airport authorities, that they neglect the interests of most of their voters. They have now fallen for the "build more" line, it would seem, while in the meantime simply regulating the number of peak hour flights and letting the airlines capture the scarcity premiums.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: If the look at the stats of America's most congested airports -- NY LaGuardia, Chicago O'Hare, Boston Logan, JFK, and Reagan National -- the fact that sticks out is that there are NO peak travel times. (Check out flightaware.com.) It's flat out busy for these airports ALL the time. After slow 6-7 a.m. starts, these airports gear up and don't wind down until 10 or 11 p.m. or later.

The only solution, and it's a simple one, is the reduce the total number of flights.

Steven Pearlstein: If that is so -- and I don't know that it is or isn't-- then congestion pricing would be very high, to the point that it would dampen demand in the short run but also give the airport and the FAA the money to expand capacity. The only hitch there is the neighbors, who oppose increased capacity. Or it gives money to open additional airports that could divert traffic/passengers to Worcester, Manchester, Providence, Westchester, etc. Those are not the ideal solutions, perhaps, but given the political reality of the neighbors, it is probably the best we are going to get.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: A week ago Tuesday, I found myself held hostage on a regional jet in Dallas (bound for DC) for 3 1/2 hours due to the ATC problems in Memphis. We'd been sitting on the tarmac for almost 4 hours when the pilot finally decided to return to the gate - to refuel. Except for the initial report about the ATC problems we receive literally no information about what was going on. On return to the gate, we were left for 30 minutes hanging with people asking if they could get off and a number of passengers with blown connections told they couldn't get off. I also heard the pilot mention that his co-pilot would be timing out soon. Shortly after this a gate agent comes on board, tells us all to be seated for pushback. No explanation. I stopped him (I was sitting near the front) and asked if the ATC issue had been resolved - he told me I couldn't blame them for the weather(??). The pilot then chimed in about taking on additional fuel so we could make a transit at a lower altitude. I asked about the co-pilots time out. (I really didn't want to get stuck on the tarmac for another 3 hours without food, drink, etc). Next thing I knew I was asked to leave the plane. Fortunately, I was able to get the next flight - and arrived home only 7 hours late.

My question - how is work on a "Passenger Bill of Rights" coming?

Steven Pearlstein: I suspect there will be something in there if a bill is passed.

This thing of not letting people off a plane that is so late they no longer want to travel -- its ridiculous. The main reason is that the airlines don't want to give refunds.

I've had the same experience, with the plane so long on the tarmac that I've missed the wedding I was supposed to be attending. I didn't want to do the flight. And they wouldn't let me off.

It is the same story: with the airlines, the customer comes last.

You see this all the time when you show up and there is a 45 minute line to check in. Do you think the airlines didn't know how many people were going to show up at the airport at that time? Of course they did. And they would rather have you wait 45 minutes, and possibly miss your plane, than hire more gate agents. It is just that simple. They have your money, they promised you something they can't deliver, and they won't give you your money back. This is the ATA's idea of a successful business model.

_______________________

woodbridge: the last few times I flew, I made sure we took Southwest (we were going to Florida and New Mexico). this was several years ago, and although I did note feeling like I was on a cattle drive, at least the ticket agents and attendants had a sense of humor and were efficient. Has Southwest gone the way of the big guys and lost that charm?

Steven Pearlstein: They never claimed to be a high service airline, but they are usually quite folksy and very efficient and it is what it is: low fare-, minimal service airline.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Steven, congestion pricing was ALWAYS available to the CAB. Fred Kahn spent an enormous amount of his time and talent pushing the idea because, having no practical experience when he took over the CAB, he had unintentionally eliminated it in 1979 when he unilaterally revoked all non-tariff based minimum pricing regulations.

What we have in US civil aviation is an industry which is essential to other commerce, subject to high capital and operating costs, and not easily susceptible to state-by-state regulation. In other words, we need the CAB back, but with MUCH bigger teeth.

Steven Pearlstein: We need something!

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: The problem with an airline deciding to go pricier but better is that all airlines will ultimately depend on the airport. Pricey Airline may want to leave on time, but is prevented doing so because there is no landing slot available then at its destination because of all the other airlines that have backed up their own flights. It may want to guarantee no lost luggage, but it's the terminal workers who handle baggage. That may be a big part of the problem with the industry. Each airline is affected by each others' performance and the airport itself.

Steven Pearlstein: It is what economists call a "commons problem." They all would be better off if they would collectively restrain their behavior. But unless there is some mechanisms for cooperating, and enforcing cooperation (i.e. government regulation), then none of the airlines will unilaterally take the step to pull back on flights, because it will just hurt that company competitively.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Steven, I used to fly to various cities for business about every other week. My current job has me going between DC and NY occasionally. We take the Acela train here. I've noticed that 2 hrs 45 min on a roomy train with a power outlet is significantly nicer than the 45 minute wait/45 minute flight/30 minute car ride routine I used to endure on shuttle flights. I get work done or read with outstretched legs. And when all's said and done, it's usually more than a hundred bucks less...even more when you factor in a cab ride from the airport. When I think about how many hours of my life I lost waiting for delayed/rescheduled flights vs. the productive time I have on the train, I don't think I could ever go back to planes for short commutes. Oh, and Acela has a great lounge for getting work done on the rare occasion when you actually are delayed. You don't even have to be a "club member" to get in it.

Steven Pearlstein: Train is a great alternative, although you'd think in the Acela train, they might be able to hire someone like Au Bon Pain to provide the refreshments rather than the stuff they have.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Salon's "Ask the Pilot" columnist, Patrick Smith, has repeatedly stated that the blame for airport congestion can be squarely placed on the profusion Regional Jet flights.

I tend to agree. Take, for example, weekday direct flights between Indianapolis and Reagan National. There are 8 flights in total (5 -- US Airways; 3 -- Northwest). Only one of the flights is operated with a standard mainline jet; the seven others are RJs that seat 50 or less.

Congestion pricing is not likely to solve the problem. Fares will simply be raised as fees are jacked up. But the number of flights, which caused the congestion, will remain the same.

Say, you cut flight frequency. Using the IND-DCA example above, let's say one daily flight is cut, from 8 to 7. If the demand remains constant, wouldn't a airline company replace a Regional Jet flight with a larger mainline one. Most likely. And that's the solution. Reduce the total number of flights.

Steven Pearlstein: The profusion of regional jets is a big part of the problem, although these are the tools, by and large, of the big airlines. So what you have are lots of regional jets that are supposed to offer more convenience to passengers by offering more choice of departure times, but these same regional jets are so clogging up the airways and the airports that they are causing massive INconvenience to those and other passengers. The right outcome: fewer small regional jet landings and takeoffs during peak hours, and the rest of the system works a whole lot smoother. That is what congestion pricing would accomplish.

_______________________

They do listen to their customers: You said "The thing is that the airlines never listen to customers. They just don't. They look at surveys, but in the end they are prisoners of their computers that fill planes (very effectively, I might add) and measure success totally on the basis of load factors and revenue per passenger mile."

The problem is customers say in the surveys that they would be willing to pay for more service and so forth, but then when it's time to buy the tickets, they go with the cheapest fare.

Look at United's economy plus. People say they'd be willing to pay a bit extra for more legroom, but there are always plenty ec. plus seats available while regular coach is sold out. If you buy a regular coach ticket and don't pick a seat when you book it, then wait until you get to the airport to check in, you'll almost always get a free upgrade to ec. plus because it never sells out.

The bottom line for most customers is the bottom line. If airline A is $10 cheaper than airline B for non-stop flights at the same time, most customers will go with airline A.

Steven Pearlstein: United didn't do it right. It wasn't enough better, it was hard to book it through third party websites and it wasn't distinguished enough from coach in ways that made people think and realize that it was a good value.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for today's good article. I've been saying for years that airline tickets are far too cheap--too cheap to expect reasonable service and too cheap for the airlines to make any money consistently.

So what can we do to fix this mess?

Steven Pearlstein: Give them the kind of negative feedback they deserve, except when you are on the flight, or they will arrest you.

_______________________

Olney, Md.: Thanks for an informative chat and column, as always.

"And they don't care about the fact that customers are unhappy and, as a result, won't show any loyalty to an airline..."

Why don't they care more? Is has been my belief that the big, established airlines still losing money hand over fist. Or am I incorrect about that?

Steven Pearlstein: Now they are making money after years of huge losses. But they are so desperate to stay in the black that they are reluctant to start spending again for service.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: I don't think that calling me a fool is a constructive response on this issue. The fact is that private aviation in Europe and Australia has been greatly damaged by user fee systems. This is no illusion.

Steven Pearlstein: That's true. So let's avoid making the same mistake. But let's not say that using any type of user fee is a slippery slope to the bad kind of user fee. It is no such thing.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: As a passenger I would be willing to put up with a fair amount of annoyance IF the staff were somewhat courteous and professional. Too often you get barked at for rising from your seat twenty minutes after the turbulence has subsided, or as happened to me on a recent flight, asked not to look out the window because the open shade disturbs passengers who want to sleep (I always get the window seat for the view - at the time we were flying over breathtaking ice formations in the Canadian Arctic). I just want to be treated like a customer, not a prison convict! Why is that so hard? It costs nothing. It has nothing to do with the bottom line - unless, as I suspect, salaries are so low for flight attendants that they just can't mask their contempt for the passengers they serve.

Steven Pearlstein: You know, I think the staff has been so badly treated and put in such a lousy position because of all the cutbacks that it is hard to blame them at this point. They are as much the victims as we are.

_______________________

Steven Pearlstein: Got to run, folks. Good discussion. "See" you next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.