Campaign woes

For journalists, anyway. By travel troubles last week prompted me to remark that I haven't been on an on-time flight in at least a year (though to be sure, I don't fly very often.) My colleague Marc Ambinder responded that this is making it much harder to be a campaign journalist than it used to be. Journalists covering the presidential campaign can basically expect to spend most of the next 52 weeks on the road; the worse flying gets, the worse their lives become. If presidential candidates want to cast themselves in a sympathetic light, they should come up with a plan to reduce the congestion at a few key hubs, particularly JFK, that make listed departure times such a cruel joke.

You know, I never really understood why making the trains run on time was so important for Mussolini, but after last week, I can understand how that became one of fascism's main selling points*.

* The first person who suggests that this is an endorsement of fascism gets sent back to fourth grade for remedial reading class.

Comments

Megan,

Megan McArdle endorses fascism. Please send me a voucher for remedial reading. Thanks.

Posted by MH | October 29, 2007 1:42 PM

According to Snopes, this isn't true. Il Duce (sp?) actually did not make the trains run on time.

http://snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

Posted by Christopher | October 29, 2007 2:02 PM

Is this one of those "dog-whistle" endorsements that liberals are always accusing conservatives of?

Posted by Chris | October 29, 2007 2:09 PM

So either I have really good luck, or everyone else has really bad luck. Or maybe it's because I mostly fly through the South and Southwest, which have more dependable weather. But over the last six years and 100+ flights that I've taken, I think two flights have been delayed by more than fifteen minutes. Is this really just me? Is it because I'm flying into and out of New Orleans? Or is it just freak luck?

Posted by Jadagul | October 29, 2007 2:14 PM

"Journalists covering the presidential campaign can basically expect to spend most of the next 52 weeks on the road; the worse flying gets, the worse their lives become."

Just a little perspective, Megs: I've worked road warrior jobs that had me in airports every week, and I complained about them a little at the time too. On the other hand, I've worked at cubicle jobs where your phone calls are monitored, your activity is constantly monitored, and some asshole manager times your trips to the bathrooms. Road warriors have it much better.

Posted by Fred | October 29, 2007 2:27 PM

The only plan I've heard that would really solve congestion is to auction landing and takeoff slots to the highest bidder. And if you don't use it, you lose it.

That would encourage airlines to schedule flights for when they really have slots, not print unrealistic schedules that overbook the prime hours.

Posted by Michael | October 29, 2007 2:32 PM

"I think two flights have been delayed by more than fifteen minutes. Is this really just me? Is it because I'm flying into and out of New Orleans? Or is it just freak luck?"

It's probably because you're avoiding the major hubs that cause the delays. What major airlines do is overbook airports (especially their major hubs), so when you purchase a ticket it appears that you have a 1 hour lay-over. There's about a 1% chance you're going to take off on time, so in effect your lay-over is a lot longer. Or it's even worse because it ends up delaying the outgoing flight on the other end, and those people miss their connections and have a forced long lay-over for the next flight.

They do this because a ticket with a 1 hour lay-over it worth more than a ticket with a 3 hour lay-over (especially prime-time hours). By the time you're at the airport it's too late to be refunded for the difference and they get away with it.

Smaller airlines don't rely on the hub-spoke method quite so much, and avoid certain airports. Their planes get delayed less at the hubs and they put their planes on a realistic schedule. I fly Alaska Airlines a lot since my travel is usually up and down the west-coast, and delays are far less frequent. When I have to fly a major airline cross country, I'm almost always delayed.

Posted by JordanT | October 29, 2007 3:31 PM

The federal government is working on the problem. The Dep't of Homeland Security is doing all it can to discourage people from flying, which should reduce the number of flights.

Posted by Avram | October 29, 2007 6:29 PM

Jadagul - Am I really tall or is everyone else just really short?

Posted by Nonemoreblack | October 29, 2007 6:39 PM

JordanT: hm, that's the first idea I've heard that might actually be an answer. I try to fly Continental when I can, through Houston, and a few years back that's pretty much always what I did. But starting a few years ago I've consistently bought my tickets way too late and so gone with Southwest, Ted, or Random-Cheap-Airline-I've-Never-Heard-Of (Incidentally, I recommend ExpressJet to everyone; it was probably the best flying experience I've had in coach ever). So if the problem's been getting worse recently, maybe I started flying exclusively with smaller discount airlines at precisely the right time.

Posted by Jadagul | October 29, 2007 6:51 PM

The absurdity of the airport system sends me into fits of sounding like a Dalek: DEREGULATE! DEREGULATE!

Posted by PEG | October 30, 2007 3:22 AM

The odd thing is that the airlines themselves oppose auctioning landing slots.

It is the root of the problem, though. The current regulations are based on unladen gross weight, which is not the proper metric for measuring delays. Small planes do create less congestion than a large plane, but not to the degree suggested by size. Therefore, there is an excess of small planes and congestion.

To be sure, many passengers prefer having more flights per day (at more convenient times) on smaller planes to their destination than fewer flights per day on larger planes, particularly on short flights. For short flights, price and convenient times are the top considerations of passengers.

For some reason, airlines prefer extra flights and believe that they can make more profits with more delays than with more on-time flights.

It is like traffic-- the fees and costs are paid for by the airlines and travelers, but they're paid for in a manner that doesn't properly account for congestion, so it still encourages too much congestion. The wrong thing is being charged.

Posted by John Thacker | October 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Oh, and JFK is the absolute worst (Newark and LaGuardia too, to a slightly lesser degree). I've been delayed out of Dulles before solely because of problems with the New York airports. (For example, delays there all day finally getting resolved, so the airspace is too full.)

Posted by John Thacker | October 30, 2007 10:44 AM

"According to Snopes, this isn't true. Il Duce (sp?) actually did not make the trains run on time..." - Posted by Christopher

You don't need to make the trains run on time if you can make the papers print that you are making the trains run on time.

Posted by Njorl | October 30, 2007 10:45 AM