Q: Lost Baggage.... I was under the impression that a flight was not supposed to take off if the passengers and baggage did not match. In Europe, where this policy is enforced, on 2 separate occasions, I have had my flight departure delayed when a bag did not match the passenger manifest and had to be removed from the cargo bay. With the bar coded baggage tags,matching bags to passengers is not a difficult task to do. Why is it that domestic U.S. carriers do not follow this policy. If they did, the lost baggage problem would be solved. If I remember correctly, this policy was instituted as a security function.

Submitted by Paul D Lane from McLean VA

A: Yes, ever since the Pan Am bomb explosion over Scotland, positive bag match has been in effect for all US and European flights. After 9/11, I belive that it was imposed within the US for domestic flights. The number of bags going through US hub airports is stagering, however. I had not heard that the US had resinded the order but if US domestic flights were held due to lost or misconnected bags, given the number of flight delays and flight cancelations that exist in the US system, the whole hub-and-spoke system would be brought to a virtual halt if this policy were enforced.

Answered 07/09/08 15:52:42 by George Donohue

Q: High fuel costs..... I recently read that up to 30% of the fuel used by an aircraft is consumed while waiting to take off... If the cost of fuel is such an important operating cost to the airlines, why haven't they approached the FAA to permit planes to be towed to the take-off point. Recently when flying from JFK to DCA my flight was number 35 in line for take off. During that 45 minutes... the length of time the flight took from JFK to DCA... waiting in line to take off, the engines just idled cosuming I do not know how much fuel.

Submitted by Paul D Lane from McLean VA

A: You are correct, one of the consequences of the airline's scheduling beyound the airport's safe capacity is increased fuel burn in the taxi-out phase of flight. This is also a carbon emissions problem. Our research at GMU has looked at procedures such as single-engine taxi and tug use. One of the problems is an engine non-start, once the aircraft is in the taxi line and it's inability to get out of the line. If the schedules were required to be rational, this would not be a problem.

Answered 07/09/08 15:47:20 by George Donohue

Q: Among the many reasons airlines are so reviled by their customers, I suspect the chief offense is chronic unreliability, both in pricing and in performance. Buying a ticket is a complete gamble, and there is always the sense that the same ticket could be purchased for much less on some other day. Result: every customer feels like a chump. Performance is even worse. After carefully crafting an itinerary to get somewhat near one's destination within a few days of the target date in order to pay a reasonable price, it is not uncommon at all to find that one's flight has been cancelled, or delayed for many hours, forcing every customer to hastily scramble to revise their carefully-made plans. Once upon a time when this would happen, airlines would issue free tickets or other compensation, but no more. Now it is just they way this business works, customers be damned. Of course, both pricing and on-time performance are largely beyond the airlines' control, since prices are determined by fuel and labor factors, and performance is dictated by air traffic control and federal regulations, as far as I know. So my question is this: what, if anything, could airlines do to mitigate the abject disrespect they are all but forced to show their customers, and why does it make sense to have this phony competitive market full of bankrupt companies when there is no room within the regulatory scheme for any carrier to do much better than the rest? And finally, who's getting rich of this mess?

Submitted by Jeff Gnecco from Chicago, IL

A: No one is getting rich in this mess! The airlines are victums of the "Prisoner's Dilema". Our research at George Mason University has shown that the governmental rules lead to this situation. The airlines feel they are forced to overschedule an airport beyound it's safe capacity by the lack of proper governmental regulations and passenger's stated preference for high flight fruency choise. The passengers are not informed of the loss of schedule predictability (as manefested by high delays and resultant flight cancelations) and loss of aircraft seperation assurance by the FAA ATC system. Explaining how this has come about and what to do about it is a major theme of our book.

Answered 07/09/08 14:58:04 by George Donohue

Q: Do you think more and more airports are going to switch to "Clear" which is the fast pass for air port security? Also do you think this is the answer to long lines at the airport?

Submitted by Patrick from Lk Mary, FL

A: Yes, I think this program will spread but I do not think it is the answer to airport security. As we discuss in our book, static defence lines have always been circumvented by a determined, intelligent enemy. Looked aircraft flight deck doors and an informed public have been our best defense against another aircraft attack like 9/11. Almost everything else has been eyewash for the public, with little real security.

Answered 07/09/08 09:48:08 by George Donohue

Q: As a passenger, I am concerned about whether or not safety standards are being compromised in the efforts to cut costs. I know that 'on paper' the airlines no doubt claim that all safety standards and precautions are being met, especially with aging fleets. However, in reality, I wonder if that is true. Do you have any insight into this situation?

Submitted by Suzanne Toll from Harrisburg, PA

A: I believe that it is in the airline industries own self interest to maintain a safe fleet operation in the US. Accidents are bad for business. The FAA can shut them down if they are found to be at fault. I also believe that the FAA oversight of their own performance in aircraft sepertion is very lax. As the government ATC service provider, they oversee themselves, a fundamental conflict of interest.

Answered 07/09/08 09:44:39 by George Donohue

Q: Do you believe more or less regulations are the answer to fix this system? Should govt get out of this business entirely except for possibly conducting QA and publishing standards/ratings of airlines?

Submitted by Dave from Columbus, OH

A: This is a good but very complex question. We try to deal with this at some length in our book. In some areas, the government should modify the current regulations, especially concerning congested airport slot controls. In other areas, the government should be decreasing it's provision Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) services, as much of the rest of the industrialized world has done.

Answered 07/08/08 21:18:18 by George Donohue

Q: Mr. Donohue, I couldn't agree with you more and for years I have been saying that the business model for the airlines is broken - but for a different reason - the pricing structure. A ticket from Charlotte, NC to Columbus, OH costs $870. But, if I travel 90 miles to Greensboro, NC and take a shuttle back thru Charlotte to take the same flight to Columbus, then the price is $288. How can I fly 2 additional legs and more miles for one-third the price? That defies all business logic. Why not have a flat price per mile of say 50 cents with a minimum of $250 and take away all of the crazy fares and hidden cities?

Submitted by Ed Hickman from Charlotte, NC

A: There is a big difference between cost of an operation and price of an operation. The airlines set the prices to be both competitive and to extract the maximum amount of money they can from each passenger. This is called "yield management". They are constantly adjusting the seat prices right up to push-back, in order to fill the plane with the minimum of lost consumer surplus. The Legacy network carriers are finding their route structures, business models and the passenger's price elasticity are no longer working to allow them to make a profit. The Low-cost carrier model is more rational, especially in today's market. I expect to see a significant decrease in the unprofitable segments of the Legacy airlines networks and a significant decrease in their aircraft fleet to reduce capacity so they can charge larger, more profitable fares, in the future.

Answered 07/08/08 21:14:33 by George Donohue

Q: With all the losses that the airlines constantly speak about,why has no airline chose to limit the unlimited travel privileges that they provide an employee and his/her family. If each airline charged 50% of the cost of the passenger ticket, can you imagine how much revenue that American Airlines could add. I have never seen this as a remedy. What is holding them back? I know employees who get on a plane and fly all over the place.

Submitted by H. Rosemary Laymon from Boston, Ma

A: This benefit has been decreasing in value due to the high load factors. Flight crew fly to airports to accommodate the flight schedules and fly on a space available basis. I know pilots who are having difficulty getting to their operations base these days because of the high load factors of paying passengers. If a seat is empty, there is no marginal cost to the airline to transport an employee. Unfortunately for the employees, there are few unpaid seats available these days.

Answered 07/08/08 21:04:53 by George Donohue

Q: Mr. Donahue- I've read reviews of your book (not the book itself, admittedly) and it seems you cover the whole spectrum of the "broken" system. Since it has gotten so bad, what are say the first 2-3 steps we consumers can take to help force things to turn around? Airlines are largely impervious to complaints and they don't seem to really care anymore whether passengers are satisfied or not. What can we do? By the way, at least the dentist will give Novocain and/or nitrous to dull the pain...no such look when dealing with the nightmare of flying in the US.

Submitted by Todd V from Boulder, CO

A: The problem starts with the rules established by the congress and DOT. Senior airline executives have told me they are just playing by the rules. If we do not like their behavior, we must change the rules. Our book goes into some detail on what rules need to be changed and why. Travelers need to write their congressmen and demand that the laws be changed. The most important rule involves establishing safe airport time slot controls, like the rest of the industrialized world. The second is to require a significant amount of out-sourcing of the air traffic management system, paid for by the appropriate user fees.

Answered 07/08/08 20:58:31 by George Donohue

Q: In your book, you mention that air traffic controllers still communicate to pilots using World War II technology? Can you explain why this is and why it isn’t changing? Also what is the top flight hazard for passengers (smoke inhalation) and won’t most Americans be surprised to learn that it is largely ignored by airlines and regulators (smoke hoods)?

Submitted by Jim from Rockville, MD

A: Changing air traffic controller communications systems is like going from the initial analog wireless cell phone technology to the current digital technology. It requires a sophisticated technical transition process which the FAA has not been and is not now staffed to accomplish. The private sector has gone through several technical generations with great success. The top flight hazard for Survival aircraft accidents is fire, more specifically smoke inhalation. Smoke hoods are easily and affordably available to private pilots to deal with this emergency. They would be much more useful to commercial passengers than the personal flotation devises currently supplied for a much more rare and less survivable accident.

Answered 07/07/08 11:08:12 by George Donohue