3 ms·
That's what you get when you run with no slack; any hiccup cascades.
by thrower123 7y ago
That's what you get when you run with no slack; any hiccup cascades.
- lisper 7y agoNo, it's what you get when consumers choose low fares. Slack costs money. Extra capacity to make contingencies less painful is expensive. People don't want to pay for it. It's not an unreasonable choice.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cgb223 7y agoThat’s not a problem, that’s a market opportunity. If airlines can find a way to do both they’ll win customers from other airlines who do not
- martinald 7y agoSo if fares were higher airlines would spend that money on nearly always unused planes sitting somewhere? Not quite sure that's what happens. Ryanair in Europe must run at one of the highest load factors (over 95% compared to American Airlines 80%). Ryanair also has some of the lowest cancellation/delays in Europe too. They had a fair few 737 MAX in service but don't seem to be suffering from mass cancellations as far as I can tell.
- jdsully 7y agoSeems to be what they used to do prior to deregulation and to a lesser extent in the 90s/2000s. Every flight being full is a more recent phenomena and they are getting better at it over time [1]. When flights aren't full you can pull a plane out of its normal route and fly those passengers on the later one. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/02/01/airlines-set-record-filling-seats-planes-2017/1087532001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...
- listenallyall 7y agoTSA is funded via specified, mandatory fees added to the cost of every plane ticket. High or low fares do not affect how much is spent on TSA, other than the indirect effect of low fares --> increased passenger demand --> more fees paid to TSA (along with more passengers to screen). https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees