FLIGHT STATUS INFORMATION FINAL SUMMARY

FLIGHT STATUS INFORMATION FINAL SUMMARY

Who Participated in the Flight Status Information Discussion?

Flight Status Information generated good discussion.  From June 2 to September 13, there were 67 total comments on the issue post:

  • 50 were made by 42 users
  • 17 were made by Regulation Room moderators

Commenters included primarily people who identified themselves as air travelers. Seven commenters identified themselves as belonging to another interest group: one as a researcher/expert, two as working for a travel agent or global distribution system (GDSs), two as working for a US air carrier, and one as undefined “other.”

From September 13 to September 19, the Draft Summary was available for comment.  No one made suggestions for changes. During this period, the Regulation Room team reviewed the comments on the Flight Status Information issue post again; as a result of this review, some additional detail has been added to this summary.

General Concerns about Flight Status Information

Several commenters self-identified as frequent flyers.  At least four commenters recounted personal stories of driving through bad weather conditions because they were not notified of a delay/cancellation, or of waiting for hours at a chaotic airport because of untimely or nonexistent delay/cancellation updates.

Notifying Passengers of Flight Delays

Most commenters who addressed this issue agree that airlines should be required to give passengers better information about delays and cancellations, although one commenter would frame the question as “in which situations is notice required” rather than how early and frequently, and for what length of delay, notification should be given.  One commenter urges that airlines be required to include the primary reason for the delay in the notification.  By contrast, at least three commenters say that their airlines already adequately notify passengers when a flight is delayed or canceled, and one adds that he/she is usually able to get flight status information online without problems.  One commenter is concerned that a blanket notice rule will not be effective and may cause more problems because airlines are sometimes uncertain about how long a flight will be delayed.  Finally, one commenter believes that if customers are dissatisfied with an airline’s flight notifications, they should take their business elsewhere, giving the airlines an economic incentive to provide accurate and useful flight status information.

DOT’s proposal to require notification for delays of 30 minutes or more seems reasonable to many, but not all, commenters.  At least one commenter says that consumers should be notified of any delay.  Another suggests delays greater than 15 minutes, with 30 minute updates.  Other commenters favor a less onerous notification policy: At least three say that notification should be required only for delays of an hour or more.  One commenter says that the 30 minute cutoff is reasonable, but there should be more flexibility for “special circumstances” such as a technical issue causing breakdown of communications.

Commenters point out that travel time to airports, added to check-in congestion and time required to clear security, means that many travelers head to the airport two hours or more before their flight time.  This leads one commenter to speculate that perhaps airline resources should be concentrated on getting passengers information about delays of more than two hours.  One commenter who pointed out that notice of a 30-minute delay would likely not help passengers adjust their departure for the airport nonetheless supported the notification requirement because it would lower passengers’ frustration: “If I’m going to be treated like cattle, I’d just as soon be happy cattle.”  This commenter favors publishing airlines’ yearly on-time percentage and passenger satisfaction ratings.  (Another responded by pointing out that the on-time percentage is already available online.)  Many commenters agree that better status information is important not only for planning purposes but also because it reduces passengers’ feelings of frustration and uncertainty.

At least some of the disagreement about what length delay should trigger notice requirements seems to reflect the fact that commenters often do not separately address the value of information prior to their leaving for the airport versus its value once they are already at the airport.  Several recount stories of frustrating experiences of lack of information, vague information, or even misleading information while waiting for a flight in the gate area or elsewhere in the airport.

There was disagreement about airlines’ responsibility to advise passengers of general delays caused, for example, by weather.  Some commenters say that airlines should alert passengers that, for example, all flights are being delayed 1–2 hours by weather; at least one other commenter says that airlines should not have to give notice in situations where passengers ought to realize there will be weather-related delay.

Accuracy of Status Information

Several commenters are concerned about the accuracy of information about flight status.  Three worry about what would happen if passengers relied on the airline’s prediction of a 30 minute delay that turns out to be shorter.  Some commenters say that inaccurate status information is actually causes more problems than no information, especially if consumers are getting different messages from airport screen, online, and gate sources.  (See below.)

There was agreement with one commenter’s suggestion that airlines should be candid with travelers that they are unable to accurately estimate delay time, whenever this is in fact the case.  One commenter points out that some delays (e.g., because of late departure of the aircraft to be used on the flight) are easier to predict accurately than others (e.g., mechanical problems).

One commenter notes that airlines depend on the FAA for accurate delay-related information, and urges DOT Department of Transportation to consider whether FAA’s traffic management practices and procedures will inhibit airlines’ ability to give accurate and timely notice to passengers.  Another commenter argues that it would be more useful to spend time figuring out how to avoid delays in the first place, rather than focusing on how to notify passengers of delays.

Timing of Notification and Updates

Many commenters suggest that airlines be required to report status changes within 30 minutes after discovering that a flight will be delayed or cancelled.  At least three commenters would require notification “as soon as [the airline] know[s].”

One commenter believes that the problem is less the frequency of delay updates (which in his/her experience are often communicated instantly via airport screens) than it is the way airlines report the information.  Specifically, delays are often reported in small intervals (e.g. announcing, every 30 minutes, another 30-minute delay) when an extended delay is actually anticipated.  Thus, this commenter argues, the information passengers do get is not really useful.

Echoing this latter concern, at least six commenters specifically address notice of flight cancellations.  Some express concern and frustration that airlines are not being honest about cancellations.  One commenter complains that airlines sometimes insist a flight will not be canceled despite poor weather conditions, and then cancel the flight officially many hours later.  Others complain that airlines do not always abide by their promise to give periodic updates.  Passengers who rely on this promise may move to other areas of the airport to await an update, only to learn hours later that the flight was cancelled.

Methods for Notifying Passengers of Flight Status

At least seven commenters addressed how airlines should provide notice.  One argues that the methods should be standardized, with all airlines required to use them.  Several commenters emphasize that email and texting notification should be used.  One suggests that airlines could easily create an automated system to send email and text alerts.  Another commenter points out that that not all passengers carry cell phones and email devices, so airlines must also notify passengers via airport screens and loudspeakers.  At least three commenters say that airlines should utilize “all available methods” in communicating delays to passengers.  One commenter suggests that passengers should be able to specify their preferred method of notification when they purchase their tickets.

Several commenters, including one who self-identified as a frequent traveler, emphasize the importance of also requiring that information be communicated rapidly to all relevant airline employees and between airport and airline, so that the various information sources are giving passengers consistent information. Complaints about this include getting inconsistent information from reservation agents, gate agents, the airline’s phone or online flight status center, and the airport screens.

Which Carriers and Flights Should Be Covered

All commenters who addressed this issue favor applying the same requirements to all carriers and all flights, except for one commenter who suggests that foreign flights might be excluded from notification requirements. (This commenter gives no reason for making a distinction.)

Miscellaneous Points

Several commenters raised concerns and made suggestions more broadly around flight delays and cancellations.

One issue is availability of personnel to provide information and help passengers affected by delays or cancellation.  One commenter has experienced problems when flight schedule problems extend to “after hours,” when, in this commenter’s words, “nobody seems to be minding the store.” He/she suggests that personnel be required to continue working at the airport until the last flight of the day has arrived or departed, to assist consumers.  Another reports several experiences where rebooking after long flights delays had to be done through the airline’s reservation phone number because no one was staffing the customer service center or gates, and the automated kiosks were unable to process the change. He/she was charged for doing the change over the phone, although there were no other options.

Another issue is the root cause of delays and cancellations.  Several commenters discussed the extent to which delays and cancellations are within the carrier’s control.  On air traffic congestion, one commenter suggests that airlines now have incentives to fly more small planes (rather than fewer large ones) to carry the same number of passengers.  These incentives include  landing fees based on weight (which make it cheaper to land two lighter planes than one heavier one), and competitive concerns that push all carriers to offer frequent flights in the most desired times for business travelers.  This commenter suggests government restructuring of incentives:   landing charges primarily based on using a slot, with only some consideration to weight. Also, fees should increase at peak times of day, to encourage carriers to spread out their flights.  For related comments, see the Tarmac Delay Draft Summary.

Commenters also targeted policies and practices that make it difficult for passengers to act on information about delays or cancellations even when the information is available.  Some note that because of long baggage clearance and security lines, passengers are often told they must be at the airport 2 hours before their scheduled flight time.  Another explains that many airlines require passengers to arrive in-person at the airport to qualify for a refund or rebooking, so notification of a delay or cancellation would not avoid the need to go to the airport and wait in long lines for a rebooking/refund.  (A variation is a policy of imposing a service charge for rebookings/refunds made through the airline’s reservation phoneline, even when the change is necessary because of delays/cancellations.)  Two commenters favor allowing passengers to rebook their flights without charge when the flight is significantly delayed or canceled, and one favors forcing airlines to refund passengers for major delays and cancellations for reasons within the airline’s control.  One commenter questions the value of notification requirements so long as airlines are not required to rebook passengers onto another flight or another carrier’s flight.

To help us make Regulation Room better, please take this SHORT survey on your experience.  (If you’ve already taken the survey, please don’t take it again.)

Register





      Click to read the Terms and Conditions & Statement of Consent

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Register

Agreement

Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Site Use/Community Guidelines and Statement of Consent

Please read this document carefully. Because The Regulation Room is part of a research program at Cornell University, you will be asked to agree to the following terms and conditions of site use and consent to participate in the research of which this site is a part.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Regulation Room: Technology to Support Citizen Understanding and Participation in Regulatory Policymaking

This site is part of a research study in how citizens can become more effective in helping government craft better regulations. It is being conducted by researchers in the Cornell University Law School, Computing and Information Science program, and Scheinman Institute for Conflict Resolution, in cooperation with the federal agencies whose proposed rules are featured on this site.

What the study is about

This study uses existing and new technologies and methods to help people develop and communicate their preferences about federal regulatory policy. A moderated discussion environment allows users to learn the details of a federal rulemaking, discuss specific parts of the agency’s proposal, and react to what others’ say about it Our goal is to contribute to the existing research on electronic rulemaking by (1) constructing a large scale public participation web environment; (2) observing group and individual behavioral tendencies in that environment; and (3) developing natural language processing methods to assist in analysis of the information submitted.

Content submitted to the site may be extracted, summarized, and analyzed. At the close of the official comment period for the regulation, summaries and analyses, as well as all content submitted to this site, will be offered to the federal agency developing the rule, to assist them in their decision making.

You may read the site without participating in the study. To do this, we require no information from you.

To participate in discussion of proposed rules, endorse, or otherwise add content to the site, we require you to register. This involves picking a username and password, providing an email address, and agreeing to these terms and conditions. We will use your email only for the following purposes, and will in no event provide it to any other person or entity: (1) password recovery; (2) notices relating to comments you submit or to site events that are significant to continued participation in the discussion; (3) request to participate in a survey about your experience using the site. You may opt out of receiving such notices and/or may decline to participate in the survey. If you chose to register, you’ll have the option of including your real name and a brief bio. You’ll also have the option of making your real name and bio publically viewable. Providing your real name, including a bio, and making either of these public are entirely voluntary.

What we will ask you to do

We encourage users to participate in the rulemaking process by discussing issues in rule, raising questions, and responding to other users’ reactions. Our researchers will summarize this discussion and you will be able to suggest changes to that summary. You may also be able to respond to polls about the rule. The final summary of discussion will be submitted by our researchers to the federal agency for inclusion in its decision-making process. You may have the opportunity to join with other users in drafting joint comments in addition to this summary. You will have the opportunity to “sign on” to such comments drafted by other users. These joint comments will also be submitted to the agency by our researchers. We will not report to the agency any individually identifying information that is not publicly available on the site.

Short web-based questionnaires will appear when you submit content to our site. When you initially register, you be asked about your experience in participating in federal rulemakings and about the nature of your interest in that rule. This information will help us determine the effectiveness of the site and may be used in summarizing and analyzing the discussion for the agency. We may contact you using the email address you provide to ask you about your experiences using Regulation Room and how these experiences relate to your usage of the internet for other purposes and your other experiences with government participation. Response to any questions for this purpose is completely voluntary.

Risks and benefits

The goal of the project is to improve communication between government regulators and the public for the purposes of creating regulation that better meets the needs of the public at reduced cost. Individuals would generally participate because they are interested in more effective regulation, reduced cost, or both.

The principle risk of participation is that an individual might choose to provide sensitive personal information even though we do not require such information and warn users against including such information. The Profile page allows users to provide their real name and a brief bio, and to make both publically viewable. Users might include other personal data, such as address, telephone number, employer, and social security number. This information could then be viewed and used by others.

We will attempt to keep web site server log data and optional web survey data protected against public disclosure.

Compensation

There is no compensation for participating.

Taking part is voluntary

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to reply to any emails, and your participation or withdrawal will not affect your current or future relationship with Cornell University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.

Modification of Terms and Conditions of Use

Cornell University reserves the right to revise these Terms and Conditions of Use at any time by updating this page. Your continued use of the site constitutes your agreement to comply with such revisions, so you should visit this page from time to time.

PRIVACY NOTICE

In any sort of report we make public and/or provide to the Federal agency we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you unless you have elected to make such information publicly visible on the site.

Please note that material you post on Regulation Room is provided voluntarily; it will be publicly visible on the web site and might be publicly disclosed in a rulemaking docket.

SITEUSE/COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

We welcome your use of our site and participation in our research. To keep the experience a positive one for all our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By submitting content to this site, you are agreeing to the following rules:

You are fully responsible for the content you post. You may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates someone else’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, you may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.

We may monitor user-generated content and we reserve the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that, in our sole judgment, violates these rules. Repeated violation of these rules may result in your being banned from the site.

By posting material to this site, you represent that you have the legal right to reproduce, adapt, display, and distribute this material to others. Neither Cornell University nor any other person or entity responsible for this site will be responsible for posted information that may infringe on a third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.

We may summarize and/or republish the content of your comments. By posting you agree that your comments may be summarized, analyzed, and republished online and in print.

You may use this site only for non-commercial purposes. This site prohibits any actions to solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity.

You may not interrupt, or attempt to interrupt, the operation of the site in any way. Unauthorized use or modification of any information stored on the site may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution under federal, state and local law. You may not to use the site to carry out any unauthorized alteration of any data or information on the site or to conduct any activity that infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, service mark or other rights of any person or entity. You may not restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying any service conducted on the site.

Cornell University reserves the right to limit or deny your access to the site or take other appropriate action if you violate any provision of these Guidelines, or if you conduct any activity that violates the rights of any person or entity or that we in our sole discretion deem unlawful, offensive, threatening, abusive, or potentially harmful or malicious.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

If you have questions about these provisions, this site or the research program it is part of, you can contact Mary Newhart, Executive Director, Cornell e-Regulatory Research Initiative, mjn3@cornell.edu, 607-255-3660.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 607-255-5138 or access their website at http://www.irb.cornell.edu/. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously through the Ethicspoint website or by calling toll free at 1-866-293-3077. Ethicspoint is an independent organization that serves as a liaison between the University and the person bringing the complaint so that anonymity can be ensured.

If you agree to these terms and conditions, we will e-mail you a link to a copy of this consent form for your records.

This form will be kept by the researchers for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB September 30, 2009; revisions on February 19, 2010, April 12 2010, February 16, 2011, and August 18, 2011.

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

I have read the above information, I am at least 18 years of age, I agree to these Terms and Conditions and Site Use/Community Guidelines, and I consent to participate in the research program of which Regulation Room is a part.

Add Feedback

Thank You

Image
Home
Rule Home
Profile Tutorial
Issue Post

Login

Forget password?
Submit
Search

Search