Delta Flight Delay Causes Plane to Take Off With Just 2 Passengers

[700UW]

https://gma.yahoo.com/delta-flight-delay-causes-plane-off-just-2-002213785--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[metopower]

That is why DL has a 99.9% completion record. Noticed that all the other passengers were accommodated on earlier flights. Besides it was on a connection carrier. I'm sure you posted this to be complementary ....

 

[Kev3188]

For those of you with access to the DL employee website, if you read the operation recaps, you can see a lot of flights with 5,6,12, even zero customers on board. Meto's correct in that by pushing for as high of completion rate as possible, these sorts of things happen. Same story with DCI carriers, though as I've noted in other threads, they also have performance clasues that come into play.

That said, these are fun stories. The general public likes them, and the media knows they will drive traffic. And hey, the people in this story will have a dinner party story to tell for years to come.

And so it goes.

 

[robbedagain]

wouldn't be better to cancel the whole flight   I don't believe the airline can make money with 12 or less folks  but I guess DL is different... 

 

[jimntx]

Well, you have to remember that guy provided "quality revenue"--whatever the hell that means.  If he had been on any other carrier (especially AA or AE), it would have been just common everyday revenue.

 

[BABABOOY]

wouldn't be better to cancel the whole flight   I don't believe the airline can make money with 12 or less folks  but I guess DL is different... 

 
Seriously?
You don't think they needed that a/c for downline flights?
 
I guess some just can't handle Delta's reliability record with such "old" a/c lol....
as metopower stated  99.9% completion factor.  Who else can claim that?

 

[robbedagain]

ever here of Ferry Flight     the dl reliability record may be just that  just a record but I doubt its a money maker once the revenue is off that plane and onto other flights.... 
 
near completion factors usually are good at most us carriers  not just limited to the widget

 

[topDawg]

ever here of Ferry Flight     the dl reliability record may be just that  just a record but I doubt its a money maker once the revenue is off that plane and onto other flights.... 
 
near completion factors usually are good at most us carriers  not just limited to the widget

still end up needing crew and all of that (and a lot of times catering is done both ways on RJ flights) 
 
So if you are going to end up having to fly the crew, food and all that why not just operate the thing. Take any PAX you have and hey, gives us NRSAs a chance to fly like we did in the old days. 

 

[metopower]

It is to the traveling public. Better check your airlines record....want to bet on that?

 

[FWAAA]

wouldn't be better to cancel the whole flight   I don't believe the airline can make money with 12 or less folks  but I guess DL is different...

Generally, no, it's not better to cancel the flight, as the plane really needs to be in NYC so that it can fly all those passengers with reservations. Weather and maintenance often cause cancellations, but it means that the crew and the airplane are then not where they're supposed to be, and airlines scramble to get things back in position. Along with rebooking a planeload of passengers.

The airline here was a commuter carrier who got paid its fixed fee for the departure, and it doesn't matter to that commuter carrier how many people were on board.

AA was roundly criticized in the world-wide media a few years ago because it flew an empty 777 to London even after all the passengers had been re-accommodated on other flights. AA responded that there were 200+ passengers in London who needed to get back to the USA and IIRC, it was a busy period and AA figured it was better to get the plane to London to bring those passengers home as scheduled. I think they crammed it full of cargo, so AA did get some revenue for the flight.

The criticism leveled at AA was about the wastefulness of burning 25,000 gallons of jet fuel and all of the carbon that put in the atmosphere - AA was contributing to global warming without even benefitting passengers.

 

[topDawg]

Generally, no, it's not better to cancel the flight, as the plane really needs to be in NYC so that it can fly all those passengers with reservations. Weather and maintenance often cause cancellations, but it means that the crew and the airplane are then not where they're supposed to be, and airlines scramble to get things back in position. Along with rebooking a planeload of passengers.

The airline here was a commuter carrier who got paid its fixed fee for the departure, and it doesn't matter to that commuter carrier how many people were on board.

AA was roundly criticized in the world-wide media a few years ago because it flew an empty 777 to London even after all the passengers had been re-accommodated on other flights. AA responded that there were 200+ passengers in London who needed to get back to the USA and IIRC, it was a busy period and AA figured it was better to get the plane to London to bring those passengers home as scheduled. I think they crammed it full of cargo, so AA did get some revenue for the flight.

The criticism leveled at AA was about the wastefulness of burning 25,000 gallons of jet fuel and all of the carbon that put in the atmosphere - AA was contributing to global warming without even benefitting passengers.

ha. 
 
oddly enough I haven't heard about that. Hate to see what would happen if that media outlet noticed one of Delta's Cargo only LAX-SYD flights. That has happened a few times, 77L LAX-SYD-LAX just for cargo. 

 

[FWAAA]

It had five passengers - not completely empty:

http://elliott.org/blog/eco-scandal-american-flies-777-to-london-with-just-five-passengers/

Anita Goldsmith of Greenpeace told the Daily Mail that American was putting profit before the environment. “Aviation is the fastest growing source of climate changing emissions,” she said, “Yet here we have another example of the reckless approach the industry takes when it comes to a choice between profit and convenience over the environment and all our futures.”

Government officials were not pleased with American’s decision to run a nearly-empty plane. “I have heard of planes flying at two thirds full before but this is the worst example I have come across,” said Norman Baker, a member of parliament. “It is a climate change crime. It shows the ludicrous nature of the aviation industry.”

A "climate change crime."

Of course, had AA not flown the plane to London, and dozens of passengers had been stranded in London for an extra night or two, then the complainers would have criticized AA for "not caring about the poor, downtrodden jetsetters."

 

[topDawg]

It had five passengers - not completely empty:

http://elliott.org/blog/eco-scandal-american-flies-777-to-london-with-just-five-passengers/


A "climate change crime."

Of course, had AA not flown the plane to London, and dozens of passengers had been stranded in London for an extra night or two, then the complainers would have criticized AA for "not caring about the poor, downtrodden jetsetters."

at least if someone is going to be stupid......they should go 100%. 
 
wow my head hurts a little.

 

[WorldTraveler]

or better yet just operate the airline on-time from the start and then you wouldn't have to worry about stranding passengers.

since not even a car trip can be without some sort of delay and airlines are by and larger fairly reliable, the reliability of airlines is fair game for discussion.

The DOT's latest airline consumer report is out, covers the month of Nov 2014 for on-time, and it shows that DL came in number 2 among US airlines in OT. If only DL had HNL type weather in NYC.

DL also had the lowest percentage of flights cancelled and based on traffic reports also had the highest load factor among the large jet carriers.

so, calls of the climate change crowd should be directed at airlines that run lower LFs.

it's also worth noting how much stronger DL's on-time performance is in the hubs of some of its competitors.... DL's OT at DFW is more than 10 points better than AA's and yet AA doesn't gain that advantage in DL hubs.

it's also worth noting how much improvement WN has made in its OT performance and in eliminating its list of chronically late flights. Good job by WN.

Customers buy air transportation first and foremost to get there as quickly and with as little hassle as possible.
airlines that operate reliably will have an advantage in winning customers over those whose operations are marked by lower OT and greater cancellation rates.

further, DL's performance on the DOT report for baggage handling, consumer complaints, and oversales was all superior to AA and UA and at the top end of all carriers.

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2015JanuaryATCR1.pdf

DL quite simply runs a very reliable, customer focused airline.

I have watched DL's ads for baggage handling several times (featuring a little girl checking her animal-shaped suitcase) but experienced first hand the absolute expertise DL uses in its baggage operations. I was rerouted on a changed connection and I knew one piece of my baggage would be separated from me. I couldn't track my bag because of some data issues so I went right to the baggage service office when I landed and didn't find my bag on the belt with the rest of my bags. The agent did some digging (30 seconds since some of the data was disconnected from other pieces of data) and said, "Mr. X your bag is coming up on carousel Y right now. Let me know if you don't see it"

Wow. just wow. thousands of miles and a couple different flights and DL manages to get my bag to me at the same time as my second flight - just on a different carousel. Hats off to some very efficient people who used the type of technology that is better known with small package services to deliver a flawless level of service.

DL is the airline run by professionals. and it shows up every day.

 

[topDawg]

so, calls of the climate change crowd should be directed at airlines that run lower LFs.
 

No they should leave the airlines
who produce basically nothing in green house gasses when compared to other sectors and is the one industry they tries to be as fuel efficient as possible. 
 
they should be focusing on the stupid things like, for example, the US government trying to push drivers away from diesel fuel which is cheaper to produce, burns better, produces more power, is much, much more efficient than gas and the engines of which last much longer than a gas engine.
but no. Obama feels the need to come up with the ULSD that jacks production costs up, drives higher maintenance costs, lowers life cycles and causes me a bunch of stress! (and also taxes the living hell out of it.) 
 
ranting a little, but the tl;dr version is airlines aren't the problem. When they become the problem and a real threat to the world is when we have moved completely away from oil based fuels in our own cars/trucks.