3 ms·

>To some degree, sure. But they really should be capable of a straight failover (forced, if necessary) to geographically separate components. AFAIK the failure

>To some degree, sure. But they really should be capable of a straight failover (forced, if necessary) to geographically separate components. AFAIK the failure at ATL had nothing to do with the ability for the IT network to failover. It was because the power at the airport was off, and therefor the airport was unable to fly planes. And when the world's largest airport goes dark, it causes ripples in delays across the entire country because of misplaced planes/staff/passengers. And you can't just "failover" hundreds of planes and thousands of passengers to a different geographic location. We're really talking about two completely different types of failure here, and the other comment is right in that it's weird to compare the ATL fire to last night's failure.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It's weird to those who know. But to those who are just looking at how bad it messes things up from a passenger's view (ie, non-aviation-knowlegeable people reading the article), it's reasonable to compare things of different causes that have similar effects.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  True, but if that's the case then why doesn't the article bring up all of the adverse weather events that have had the same impact? Even for non-aviation-or-tech-knowledgeable people, I think most still care who is at fault for such disruptions. The article frames the ATL fire as Delta/Southwest's fault. It puts the ATL fire in the same category as other, airline-specific issues that were caused by Delta's IT systems. But that just isn't the case. The ATL fire affected every airline at ATL (but for some reason the article only calls out SW and DL), and was the fault of the airport, not the airlines. It's more similar to bad weather shutting down an airport than it is to the IT issues that Delta faced last night. It just feels like bad reporting to include that comparison.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

It's weird to those who know. But to those who are just looking at how bad it messes things up from a passenger's view (ie, non-aviation-knowlegeable people reading the article), it's reasonable to compare things of different causes that have similar effects.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
True, but if that's the case then why doesn't the article bring up all of the adverse weather events that have had the same impact? Even for non-aviation-or-tech-knowledgeable people, I think most still care who is at fault for such disruptions. The article frames the ATL fire as Delta/Southwest's fault. It puts the ATL fire in the same category as other, airline-specific issues that were caused by Delta's IT systems. But that just isn't the case. The ATL fire affected every airline at ATL (but for some reason the article only calls out SW and DL), and was the fault of the airport, not the airlines. It's more similar to bad weather shutting down an airport than it is to the IT issues that Delta faced last night. It just feels like bad reporting to include that comparison.