Friday, December 21, 2007

Government Logic

Government steps in to ease flight delays
Fewer flights will be allowed in and out of New York's airports at the busiest times as part of a Bush administration plan to help reduce delays at airports across the United States.

So their plan to reduce inconvenient travel delays is to allow fewer flights? Do they not understand what the word "delay" means?
Delta's senior vice president of network and planning, Bob Cortelyou, said the caps in New York will "be great for our customers" because they will almost certainly ease delays at JFK, and thus lead to fewer disgruntled passengers, and fewer missed connections.

So they won't be disgruntled by not being able to book a flight at all? Or is it just that they'll be pissed off at the government for limiting flights, instead of being pissed off at Delta for being unable to accurately predict arrival times? Not really "fewer disgruntled passengers" so much as just shifting the source of the disgruntlement.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

the delays are caused by too many flights using smaller aircraft. by restricting flights, the airlines would be forced to schedule movements on larger planes. the net effect, in theory, is that the same amount of passengers can be travel on fewer flights. fewer flights means less congestion at airports, which should translate to fewer delays.

Salvius said...

And the government needs to step in and limit flights, because the airlines aren't smart enough to figure it out on their own? One might think that increasing efficiency and decreasing customer annoyance at the same time might serve to actually make the airline more profitable, and therefore make this something that a smart airline would do on their own... Unless, of course, they've done the analysis and determined that it actually wouldn't be more efficient. In which case this is just another example of harmful government interference.