Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software News

FAA Software Aims to Make Flights Easier 130

Posted by samzenpus from the no-more-delays dept.
coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week expanded a program that it says will reduce flight delays during the peak summer season. The Airspace Flow Program gives airlines the option of either accepting delays for flights scheduled to fly through storms or flying longer routes to maneuver around them. The agency said that it rolled out a new software program that ensures airports impacted by bad weather receive the maximum number of flights that can safely fly to them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FAA Software Aims to Make Flights Easier More

FAA Software Aims to Make Flights Easier

Comments Filter:

  • (sorry) (Score:5, Funny)

    by The New Andy ( 873493 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:29PM (#19247735) Homepage Journal
    This idea will never take off.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 )
      Actually, you're probably correct.

      The outbound flights (at the airport with bad weather),
      will be the ones that are delayed, instead of other
      flights whose destination is the airport with the bad
      weather being delayed.

      Ever sit on the plane at the gate for hours
      because of bad weather at your destination?

      Hot, no drinks, no food, no information, and
      you can't go back inside the terminal.

      With this plan, it will be the other way around,
      because it will mess up less airports.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Is it too much to RTFA?

        The agency employed the program last year at seven locations in the Northeast. On bad weather days at major airports in the region, delays fell by 9 % compared to the year before.
        • Meaningless. 9% is not statistically significant.

          Collecting stats on just the northeast region
          which is high traffic and high congestion does
          not extrapolate to the entire system.

          Furthermore, measuring the delays during the
          summer season proves nothing. The worst delays
          occur during the winter, when there is almost
          always a storm system (or two) somewhere over
          the country.

          During the winter, it's a 90% probability
          that a large airport is being impacted by wx.

          • Re:(sorry) (Score:5, Informative)

            by CapsaicinBoy ( 208973 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @06:25AM (#19250287)
            Meaningless. 9% is not statistically significant.

            Please turn in your geek card on the way out.

            Anybody that has passed intro stats at any level knows (or should know) that effect size and statistical significance are two completely separate measures. You can have a 2% improvement that is highly significant or you could have a 20% improvement that isn't - without the actual data you cannot know.

            Now, the question you are trying to ask is if, in medical terms, a 9% improvement is clinically meaningful. If I can show a new drug lowers blood pressure by 2mm hg every single time, the improvement will be statistically significant, but not in any way useful. Just yesterday I was running a hierarchical regression where the final predictor only improved the fit of the model by 3.3%, but the change in fit was certainly significant (p=.004)

            If you want to use the word significant as a synonym for meaningful that's ok I guess (I wouldn't). But please don't add the word "statistically" to the phrase in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter. It just makes communicating statistics to the public that much harder for those of us that actually do it for a living.

            • Re:(sorry) (Score:4, Funny)

              by maxume ( 22995 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @07:35AM (#19250625)
              I figured there was a 75% chance that you would slam him for making up his 90% figure. I'm 100% disappointed.
            • "There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics". Extra points if you can place the quote.

              The term "significance" is the weasle word here. If you are stuck on a hot airplane and have a choice for waiting 91 minutes or 100 minutes, the difference just isn't significant...to the poor fool stuck on the plane. (unless you ask him at 90 minutes which he would prefer.)

              Incidentally, this same program is being rammed down our throats where I live-they didn't even ask us because it's so significant! T
              • Sherman? (as in the General)
              • how about the other way? instead of cutting the delay times by 9% (maybe not a big deal), they cut the number of delays by 9%.

                given roughly 28000 commercial flights per day [natca.org] in the US, if 10% (number from my ass, but i imagine it's low) are delayed, you're talking about 2,800 delayed flights. 9% of that is 252 flights per day that won't get delayed because of the new system. 252 is a lot of airplanes, and who knows how long those delays might have been... 30 min? 2 hours? most likely much longer t

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by GigG ( 887839 )
                "When I lie awake at 3:00 am, listening to large, low-flying jet aircraft as they roar directly over my house at full throttle, I will take comfort in that fact. After all, it's significant!"

                When you bought your house did you not notice that huge place with the long strips of concrete? That was an airport.
                • Sure! What I mean is that they RE-routed the air traffic over my house. It used to go over the river, supposedly for safety reasons. I guess we are statistically safe enough-the FAA certainly wasn't interested in getting feedback on the issue.
            • Point taken. I was looking at it from the passenger standpoint.

              TFA does not say how they measured delay.

              Was it the number of flights per 100 that had a delay,
              or was it the average delay in minutes per flight?

              From a passenger point of view, it's not that big
              of an improvement.

              From a airline point of view, yes, it will save
              them money on fuel costs.
    • I suggest leaving the decision about whether or not to take off up to the airline with the following conditions: either they take off in their time slot, or they go back to the terminal and immediately unload the passengers. No other options.

    • Re:(sorry) (Score:5, Funny)

      by JContad ( 1088777 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @11:47PM (#19248265) Homepage
      I agree. It's plane retarded.

      *ducks*

    • FAA Clippy (Score:4, Funny)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @11:54PM (#19248321)
      It looks like you're trying to fly. Can I help you?

      I feel safe already!

  • If you asked me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:30PM (#19247741) Journal
    I think they could make the whole flying experience better if they banned the TSA people from the security checkpoint... but that's just me. meh

    • Re:If you asked me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @11:14PM (#19248039)
      I was just thinking the same thing going thru the airport yesterday. It used to be a few security personnel at the metal detectors and at least they were courteous. Now there is a legion of staff, most of whom seem to have been recruited with a 'Would you like to be a petty tyrant?' ad and who speak to you with a 'do as I say or I will fuck your day up so badly' manner because an environment has been created where what they say goes. Travelling is enough of a nuisance without these prats trying to piss you off as well.
      • Aaaah, the joys of being a 100k flyer. We actually get the nice folks... mostly. I did make the mistake of going in a non-premier line a few weeks back, and they actually had the gall to take my toiletries and leatherman. Don't know how many times I had gotten through with the same bag before...

        • In other words (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 )
          The terrorist of the future will fly first class. Since you simply CAN'T piss off an exec by not letting him get into the plane with his gadgets.

          • The terrorist of the future will fly first class.

            As did the terrorists of the past. It's a better strategic location.

            The problem is ultimately not with a little knife or any other necessity people bring with them on the plane, it is the process overall. There simply isn't, nor was there ever, a good way to secure an airplane while making it an attractive means of travel. About the only way would be to put passengers in individual cages and knock them out.

            Maybe a better way to approach airport security i

            • I wouldn't mind being unconscious during a 12 hours trip, so I wouldn't have to deal with that sweaty pig to the left, Fidgety Phillip to the right and the bored, kicking kid behind me.

      • Travelling is enough of a nuisance without these prats trying to piss you off as well.

        The flight I took from Malaysia to Australia in January had a similar level of security and I put it down to the flight I was boarding being from the USA. Its not just happing at US airports. It is airports which aircraft transit to after leaving the US as well.

      • When I read comments like this, I wonder what most people are doing??

        I don't fly a huge amount--in 2006-2007 so far I've flown maybe 5-6 roudtrips. I have absolutely no doubt that there are some TSA people who are jerks. But in all my flying I don't think I've ever run into a one of them who wanted to "fuck up my day" or that I would "describe as a petty tyrant"

        You know, I don't get what's so onerous about the whole thing either.. Show my boarding pass (printed at home often)+ID to get it initialed. I take

        • Re:If you asked me (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dnahelix1 ( 1060308 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @03:01AM (#19249407)
          Off-topic to the original subject, but the TSA security just gets me agitated. I fly about once a month. First you show your id (which could be fake) and your boarding pass you printed at home (which could be fake). Then, ten feet later, you do it again. Why? who knows. Then I have to unpack. I take my router with me, chargers, ipod, camera, phone, laptop and the usual crap that goes with it. I usually pack them in a separate bag that goes in my carry-on, but have that bag out separately because then I don't have to go into the bag to get it out. Half the time, this causes an argument with the TSA person b/c I have now have too many bags. So I have to put the bag in the bag to get into screening only to have to pull it out again. The laptop has to be in a separate bin. The shoes have to come off, the sweater, laptop bag go in one bin. Then the carry-on bag. Now, let's not forget about the gels and liquids. They've literally spent four minutes telling me how I'm allowed a bigger bag. I tell them I don't need a bigger one, everything fits nicely in this small bag, thanks. They tell me again, I'm allowed a bigger bag. I roll my eyes. Let's remember the time where I had my inhalers without the prescription for them (it's usually on a box that the inhaler comes in) and they wanded it, swabed it, etc. I've had them look at my mascara and lip gloss with the utmost scrutiny, yet first-class people go by with their water bottles. So now, my stuff is in four bins, all over, they want my id and boarding pass, again (third time in probably 30 feet). I fly out of Chicago a lot and now it's winter and I had to take my shoes off so my socks are wet. I can't monitor my stuff because it's in four bins, they want to wand me for whatever reason (I didn't set the alarm off). They're going through my stuff, my feet are wet and now I get to pay $5 for a bottle of water that I could have filled for free. When I fly out of the small airport, they swab the bag there because it's only one flight going out at a time. If it sets off the detector, they call you up, you watch while they unpack your bag, stuff all over the place in plain view and then they shove it all back in the bag that took 2 hours to pack because it's Christmas. If you try and repack it to protect the breakables, they pitch a fit. And then, they want your ID and you to sign a form that says it's your bag. You ask for a copy of the form and what it's going to be used for and they won't tell you, just that it's for their 'records'. So let's review: They still don't know if I am me. My feet are wet, there's some slight public humiliation for underwear being thrown about, probably sick because I can't keep properly hydrated on the plane and I'm pretty sure I'm in some database that I will never be able to find out for why. We're really really safe now, aren't we?
          • That sounds truly painful...

            The way the boarding pass seems to work is...you get it authorized by a security person while you are in line (this is when they sign it). As you go from unsecure to secure, you have to show your pass again (I've never had to show ID again). Not the best system, no, but not too annoying either...

            I've flown in and out of Midway a lot, and always had good experiences there. My one experience with ohare was not as fun--mostly due to having to run across 30 minutes of airplane to BAR

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by glarbl_blarbl ( 810253 )
              I don't fly that often, but my dad is a retired airline pilot so I get to see the industry from a different angle..

              Three years ago my family traveled to Ft. Bragg to see my brother off to the Iraq war (he's fine after serving two tours - he's now in the Army Reserve). On the way out, my mom (like my dad and brother, a military veteran) was stopped by the TSA because she set off the metal detector. She explained to the officer that she had a metal valve in her heart after a recent surgery. The officer tol
              • Well that's a damn depressing story.. RDU's security area really does not have a lot of space.. i can believe that was quite unpleasant.

                Makes me wish that "profiling" wasn't such a naughty word..

            • Re:If you asked me (Score:4, Insightful)

              by maxume ( 22995 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @07:45AM (#19250695)
              None of your 'pack smarter' tips would be necessary if the actual goal of the checkpoint was to make you safe. The problem is that the security is there to cover someones ass, and to make people feel safe. They don't need to check that you don't have big bottles of fluids, they need to be able to say they checked that you don't have big bottles of fluids.

              The fact that it is just plain stupid makes it all the more objectionable.
              • I have not said--even once--that the system was great. Of COURSE the security is there to cover someone's ass. Welcome to LIFE, why exactly does this come as a surprise to you?

                Would you rather they not even try? The gels/liquids thing is stupid to me. Maybe they know something I don't? Maybe they're morons? I don't know. What I do know is... no gels/liquids.

                My point is merely that, we all know exactly what we're dealing with, and there's no excuse for not being able to modify our own behavior to easily get

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by maxume ( 22995 )
                  I'm surprised that you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable. I totally agree that the best way to deal with bureaucracy is either to be prepared and follow the rules or avoid it all together. I don't like that money is being pissed away making ninnies feel safe and inconveniencing everyone else; it's worth trying to convince people that it isn't worth it.
                  • It's a good point.

                    But I don't really know if it's a waste or not. I mean, I would assume that airport security precautions today would greatly discourage another 9/11, or a Red-shoe-bomber, etc. I don't think the entire process is a waste--though as I said, I am very skeptical to the liquids. No hijackings, no bombings, etc. Now who knows if there would have been any of those things without the added security? Nobody...

                    How exactly do you know that money is being "pissed" away just to make "ninnies" feel saf

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by maxume ( 22995 )
                      Look up some of the stuff that has happened anyway. They caught a drunk guy sleeping in a plane, he had jumped the fence and climbed into the plane, while drunk, without getting noticed. If that can happen, then passengers aren't quite the problem. Demented charter security required soldiers to hand over nail clippers and lighters, but not their M-16s.

                      Locking, re-enforced cockpit doors solved the 9/11 gambit. Planes may end up crashing, but they aren't going to end up crashing into large occupied buildings.
                    • Re: Drunk Guy. Haven't heard that one... I'm not quite sure what the point is. That security is not perfect? What do you suggest? No security? Where's the "happy medium"? Nail clippers idiotic? probably..

                      the point is--no hijackings since 9/11. Like I said earlier, I don't know if that is due to added security or what, but, nothing bad has hapened. That's not to say nothing bad could or will ever happen, and I don't know how causal the relationship is, but I REALLY don't understand what you are advocating.
              • The problem is that the security is there to cover someones ass, and to make people feel safe.

                Two serious questions:

                1) Who are the people who felt unsafe before security theatre was introduced, and what were they scared of?
                2) Who are the people who feel safer now because of it?

                Everyone I know who flies a) was not scared of bombs or hijackers, and b) is just becoming more and more pissed off because this "security" rubbish.

                I ask these questions because the answers I hear are "the public" and nameless "people

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by SkyDude ( 919251 )
              TSA = Thousands Standing Around

              It's a government agency after all.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by R2.0 ( 532027 )
            So you'r the person in front of me that, although they look like a frequent flyer, cant seem to get their act together. I always thought it was just inexperience or a bad day. Thanks for confirming it's just obstinacy and ego - after all, you are soooo much smarter than those TSA idiots, why don't they simply trust you when you appear to have more bags than allowed, or that you have scripts for those random meds?

            Maybe you ought to face the situation as it is, instead of insisting that the world should rev

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bberens ( 965711 )
              Maybe it shouldn't be the TSA's job to monitor whether or not I have a script for my inhaler. Maybe the whole point of carrying bottled water is that water from the tap is a disgusting cesspool. Maybe there's a huge amount of money and wasted time with almost zero additional security and it pisses people off. Maybe with more people expressing dissent there's a snowball's chance in hell of things changing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bronster ( 13157 )
          I guess you've never been guilty of flying while ethnic, or flying while being shifty looking, or (heaven forbid) flying while having a similar name to someone on the s00p3r s3kr1t watch list.
          • Flying while "ethnic" huh? Well, I can't say that I have (not liable to change, either!). I've flown with "ethnic" friends before and it went off fairly well.. I'm not sure I've heard stories of "ethnic" people being hassled in the security line either. I have spent a good bit of time on several flights studying up on Persian, and I emerged unscathed ;-) I'll ask some friends their opinions though.

            As for being shiftly looking--I don't really know what that entails. This is slashdot however, so you might inf

            • Flying while "ethnic" huh? Well, I can't say that I have (not liable to change, either!). I've flown with "ethnic" friends before and it went off fairly well..

              I know an italian guy dark skin, dark curly hair, and with bushy eyebrows. He travels quite a bit. He knows from experience that he needs to cut his hair and his eyebrows short, or else he will be hassled. He has found that there is a remarkable correlation between the length of his hair (again, including that just over his eyes) and the amount of ha

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

          I don't fly a huge amount--in 2006-2007 so far I've flown maybe 5-6 roudtrips. I have absolutely no doubt that there are some TSA people who are jerks. But in all my flying I don't think I've ever run into a one of them who wanted to "fuck up my day" or that I would "describe as a petty tyrant"

          I haven't personally run across them, but in addition to the other stories people have already brought up, you might want to take a look at this [blackfive.net].

      • Maybe it's the airports you fly through, or maybe you give off some bad vibes - but I've never had a problem with the TSA screeners.

        Even the time I was selected for the random full monte search, and they found the sheaf of maps with circles and arrows and approach routes etc... in my backpack. A quick (and polite) dicussion of geocaching, and I was on my way with no problems. It also helps that for years I've habitually travelled during off peak hours - nowadays that means I get to the airport whe

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Corbets ( 169101 )
        Oddly enough, I've never had that experience. I've flown around the US and Europe, and as a general rule (with one or two minor exceptions) I've found that a smile and a friendly hello are all that's required to make people treat you pleasantly. Sure, it's not like it keeps me from getting searched, but I've never had anyone been overtly rude or anything.
    • From my journal:

      I think my thoughts of the differences were polarized on my trip through JFK back home from Sweden. It was late, and TSA was mostly unoccupied. As we approached the ribbon ropes that separated the non-existent lines, I saw a gang of urban youths, krunk, bling-bling, and all. Their baggy basketball jerseys and low pants flowed with their movements as they laughed and cackled among each other with exaggerated movements typical among boisterous youth. I wondered what they were doing near TSA, a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NateTech ( 50881 )
      Just avoid the checkpoints altogether and get your pilot's license. I've seen people blow more money on a ski trip than a Private rating, and anyway -- it's fun.

      Get some Instrument flying skills and that rating too, and you're even better off.

      It's not cheap, and no corporation on the planet wants to know that you're flying yourself somewhere, but who cares?

      You get to leave when you want, (weather permitting), take along what you want (yes, you're allowed to leave your Leatherman on your belt), and you even
  • 1 small cloud + 2 planes aloft = 3 hour delay

    Is flying through storms all that good of an idea? Really?

    • Flying Through storms... (Score:5, Informative)

      by DieByWire ( 744043 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:56PM (#19247933)

      Is flying through storms all that good of an idea? Really?

      "Flying through storms" isn't an accurate description - it's what happens when the mainstream press reports on a technical issue.

      Nobody flies through thunderstorms. At least knowingly and on purpose. You fly between them (or over them if you're not stuck in a A320.)

      Delays happen in the summer because the traffic trying to pass an area or line of thunderstorms enroute has to squeeze into the areas between cells. Controllers have to maintain a specified spacing between aircraft, so when you have less space for traffic, you have to accept less traffic.

      In the past, the FAA would hold aircraft on the ground to keep traffic at a rate the affected area could handle. As I read the summary, it looks like they're going to give airlines the option sitting it out on the ground (rate limiting) or of rerouting well outside of the affected area - effectively a choice between a departure delay or a longer route with ahe increased fuel burn.

      Choice is good.

      • Re:Flying Through storms... (Score:5, Informative)

        by daBass ( 56811 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @02:59AM (#19249401)

        or over them if you're not stuck in a A320

        I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.

        In fact, most pilots who have flown both will tell you the A320 is a much smoother ride in rough weather because the fly-by-wire responds so much faster to any unwanted movement than a non-FBW plane that just bounces around and with the auto pilot responding only to longer term deviations. (ie: the auto-pilot is happy as long as the course and altitude are OK, short pitch and roll changes aren't important) Having been a passenger way too many times on both, I have noticed the same.
        • >>or over them if you're not stuck in a A320

          >I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.

          I was just trolling for 320 pilots from a 757 point of view (i.e., looking down several thousand feet.)

          Service cieling isn't necessarily a good measurement of in service performance - it just tells you how high you can get an empty airplane, not one that's making money. The A320's typi

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by daBass ( 56811 )
            Good; I quite like being a passenger on A320s, more so than on 737s. I never cared much for 757s but that could be because most 757s I have been on were crappy old ones operated by Delta and United...

            Most of my flying is short to medium haul in Europe, where 757s aren't very popular because they are designed to take a relatively small number of people quite a long way - something we don't need much over here. (767s are popular here because they do both short haul and transatlantic quite efficient; you can d

        • I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.

          Actually, the majority of the 737's flying around the US are the next-gen 737-700s, -800s, and -900s at this point. And the difference between FL390 and FL410 is quite substiantial when you are trying to avoid weather - if you are below the tropopause, most likely you will be caught in the blowoff from the tops and unable to see most

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by daBass ( 56811 )
            Ah, right, that is why it is a smoother ride. That makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining it!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by daBass ( 56811 )
            Oh, and also: do you ever get that high? I have never seen a plane I was on break through FL390. But that could be because we in Europe don't have quite the severe weather systems like you guys get.
            • Not too frequently - I don't fly the -800 and -900s as often as I like (they are in a higher pay category, so they tend to go fairly senior...), but the most common time we've gone up to FL410 is on the red-eyes back from the west coast. They are usually pretty lightly loaded, and so it's worth it to go up there. On the Carribean turns, which is what I do most of the time, we're usually too heavy to start, and it's a major pain to climb once you are on the Atlantic routes (HF radio + relayed clearances =

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by daBass ( 56811 )
                One thing I notice about the difference between European and US airlines is how trigger happy you guys are on the seatbelt sign! Don't turn it off to begin with until cruise, then the slightest single bumb and it's own again for the (very quiet) next half hour. And then when it is on again for seemingly no reason and you are busting for the loo and decide to get up, the cabin crew starts shouting for you to sit down with a fear in their voice as if your untimely demise is imminent. Oh, and of course the mov
      • They already give us the choice if waiting it out or reroutes. The call them "Ground Delay Programs" and the cause us to be issued "Estimated Departure Clearance Times" (EDCT for short). If the volume problem is at the destination airport we just have to live with them (daily when you're flying in and out of newark all day). If its weather and the constraint is an arrival corridor they'll reroute us. Sometimes this means instead of coming up over DC we'll be sent west over the pa/ohio border around lake

  • better all around (Score:4, Informative)

    by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:38PM (#19247809) Journal
    they aren't flying through storms, they fly AROUND storms- they aren't stupid. their choices increase from just straight up delays to either flying around a storm or a delay [they didn't do this already?] it is a good improvement- the delay could be a lot less and if it works well things will get better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jmv ( 93421 )
      How long 'til a plane runs out of fuel because someone forgot to add some more to cover the extra distance?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by A Holstenson ( 971167 )
        Probably never, these days they actually do some calculations to decide how much fuel to carry.

        There are a few different configurations for the route taken by a plane. The most common is from a departure point to an arrival point and from there the possibility to reach a alternate airport. Other configurations are for two alternates and such things as replanning while in flight to decide if they should continue to the destination or head for the alternate.

        Anyways, the regulations say that you should carry e

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        How long 'til a plane runs out of fuel because someone forgot to add some more to cover the extra distance?

        Depends if the pilots are from Canada, in which case it would probably not be too much of a problem.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hazzey ( 679052 )

      they aren't flying through storms, they fly AROUND storms- they aren't stupid. their choices increase from just straight up delays to either flying around a storm or a delay [they didn't do this already?] it is a good improvement- the delay could be a lot less and if it works well things will get better.

      With all of the talk about saving fuel to cuts costs, is there any airline that would take the longer (greater fuel cost) route?

  • Government Software (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:39PM (#19247817)
    Software written for the feds. That usually turns out well...

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I hope you don't expect miracles from 2.1 billion software budget.
      http://www.fcw.com/article81246 [fcw.com]

      Senators triple FAA software program's funds

      BY Randall Edwards
      Oct. 24, 2003

      Senators recently approved a 215 percent budget increase for a major software acquisition program of the Federal Aviation Administration even though an inspector general described the project as a high-risk investment.

      The Senate's version of the fiscal 2004 Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill inclu

  • What kind of software company uses PowerPoint to illustrate their application?

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by idego ( 897496 )
      Microsoft

    • What kind of software company uses PowerPoint to illustrate their application?

      Practically all of them, unfortunately. Even our company Christmas dinner has had a power point presentation for the last couple of years. Its hard to kick off the old thought processes without a slide for prompting.

      • I loathe that application greatly.

        Our company has generated > 700mb presentations for regional meetings, a particular one which required on-the-spot laptop upgrades to memory to even be able to run it.

        It did turn out to be a very nice presentation, though.
  • It seems like this is a partial response to the backlash of people getting stranded on planes on the ground during bad weather. Now the airlines have the option of putting the planes in the air, and flying the long way around to avoid the weather.

    The end result is that people will still be spending more time in airliners.

    • Re:Just moving the delay into the air (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @10:56PM (#19247937)
      It will mean longer flights but I guess the airlines feel it's less expensive to burn the extra fuel rather than deal with or compensate stranded and irate passengers.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @11:46PM (#19248253)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          Last week, I took a flight from Shanghai to Xiamen (SSS airline). Due to air traffic issues, we were stranded on the ground for an hour or so. In fact, the same amount of time it would have taken to fly to Xiamen had we left as scheduled. Needless to say, one guy was shouting and yelling about this.

          This can be a good way to get kicked off the plane.

          You could also hear everyone's irate attitude toward this airline even through it wasn't there fault.

          Sure the crew, especially the flight attendants, were

    • Now the airlines have the option of putting the planes in the air, and flying the long way around to avoid the weather.

      With fuel prices up and production now down due to refinery maintenance, as per the evening news, this seems like the perfect solution to a TSA created problem. Perhaps it would be more economical if the airlines could figure out a way to debark the passengers of a weather grounded airplane without creating extra TSA problems. They could save some fuel and wouldn't have to raise ticket pri

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by the pickle ( 261584 )
      The end result is that people will still be spending more time in airliners.

      You make it sound like routing around a thunderstorm actually adds a significant amount of time to the flight, as compared to spending several hours on the ground waiting for the weather at a destination to clear up.

      For en-route weather, the additional time spent in flight is minimal (on the order of seconds to a few minutes, occasionally as much as 10-15 minutes). For weather at the destination airport, there isn't anything that ca

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AlphaOne ( 209575 )
        You make it sound like routing around a thunderstorm actually adds a significant amount of time to the flight, as compared to spending several hours on the ground waiting for the weather at a destination to clear up.

        Not only that, but going around weather isn't something new... aircraft have been doing that for as long as they've been in the air.

        It sounds to me that all this new software does is fill empty arrival slots with other aircraft whenever a cancellation or delay occurs. I'm surprised they haven't

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Oswald ( 235719 )
        This is not about the option to go around weather. This about the option to go around the area that aircraft are going around weather in. That can add up to a lot of extra miles--several hundred for any storm system worthy of the name.

        It will cost a good bit of extra fuel some times (sometimes they would have burned it anyway holding at the destination if their luck was bad), but it's still going to be a popular option because customers and bosses and pilots like to get the hell going. Despite the OP's

  • it it is we may be in for some real bad crashes.
  • And you'll arive without your checked bags anywhere in sight I'm sure. I think some of the companies they outsource bag handling to must hire chimps... no wait, chimps know how to arrange items [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rakishi ( 759894 )
      I've only had my bags delayed once, 6+ years ago on a small intra-state flight (prop plane). Their excuse was that due to turbulent weather the extra weight of the bags would have caused the plane to crash. The flight was a quarter full and half those people didn't have bags (didn't go to pick them up). Yeah, either they suck as BSing or I never wish to fly that route again.

      To my great amazement they even got my bag to the correct final destination when they forced me to check it in at the gate (fuckers run
      • I'd say they are expert BS'ers. I've been on a full 747 flying over the atlantic when we hit some serious turbulence (of the sort that toss a plane in 100-ft increments) and, funny, we didn't crash.

        I've been on 5 different overnight flights and having all of my bags arrive has been the exception not the rule. This has also been true for my 10 or so national flights as well. It would be nice if one of the airlines would wise up to this.

  • Skip check-in? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sc0ob5 ( 836562 )
    Does the software allow you to skip check-in? That'd make flights a lot easier.
    • Given the current state of paranoid useless security measures, i doubt that would ever happen.

      Airline companies are almost as bad as School Administrators these days for kneejerk uninformed reactions, and the instant someone says "no check-in" people will probably spaz out concerning passenger list verification.
  • But does it run on Linux? :-)
  • If routing around weather is an option, I can only wonder what percentage of passengers who will simply be stuck in another city after missing their connecting flights.
    It's been my experience that the airlines like to get you up and out of your destination city rather than rebook you at your option.

    Choice may be good for the airline companies, but not for all the passengers.

    -Bedammit

  • Burning more fuel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @03:54AM (#19249687) Journal
    Yippee for burning more fuel!
    I guess somebody didn't get the memo about reducing our nation's dependence for foreign oil.
    • Yippee for burning more fuel! I guess somebody didn't get the memo about reducing our nation's dependence for foreign oil.

      You realize planes don't just always fly in straight lines between cities right?

  • Don't underestimate Mother Nature (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Thursday May 24, 2007 @07:03AM (#19250457) Homepage
    I do not like the idea of anything that give airlines an incentive to fly through storms.

    There is a certain amount of hubris in the idea that we have tamed nature to that extent. It is not always obvious where the downdrafts are. Tornadoes, after all, begin inside clouds and are invisible until they start to pick up moisture, dirt, houses, etc.

    On several occasions I've been on commercial flights that were hit by lightning while in flight. The times it happened, it was no big deal... but it shouldn't be taken for granted that it is never a big deal. Particularly with the increasing dependence of basic aircraft flight systems on electronics.

    • On several occasions I've been on commercial flights that were hit by lightning while in flight. The times it happened, it was no big deal... but it shouldn't be taken for granted that it is never a big deal. Particularly with the increasing dependence of basic aircraft flight systems on electronics.

      Not to try to say that being hit by lightning isn't a big deal, but those electronics you refer to are tested in a lab for their response to lightning-level charges delivered directly to their input ports. A

      • No doubt, just as aircraft companies test the calculations on their plane by putting hydraulics jacks under the wings of a prototype and forcing them upward to see if they break when the calculations say they are supposed to.

        And, yeah, a plane is a pretty good Faraday cage and it isn't grounded and so forth.

        But if a plane isn't quite what it was when it was new (think Aloha Airlines Flight 243), or if the storm is a little stronger than the one the engineers planned for, or the pilots are more tired then th
  • Seriously. In 2000, a trip to the US took the flight and approximately 1-2 hours at immigration.

    In 2007, you can count at standing at the very least 4 hours. Though you don't feel it as such since they invented many funny pastime activities to keep you entertained. Shoe-roulette, where everyone gets to take off his slippers and, hey, take the cheap sneakers for the flight, you might return with a more valuable pair! Not to mention that my sex life definitly improved since they tweaked the metal detectors to
  • This might help, but it won't stop the real problem, which is all the flights trying to depart at the same time. Look at the departure board, ever wonder how all those flights can leave simultaneously? Multiple runways help, but they can only use ~2 at a time. A limited number of planes can depart in a finite amount of time. Once they stop that (yeah, right) then the delays will be reduced.

    Every little bit helps, but they have a long way to go.
  • The flight could be delayed, Cancel or Allow

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close