Airlines cancelling a flight because it's not full?

[18-Wheeler]

I haven't followed the rules regarding this for many years but I though once an RPT and you could not cancel a scheduled RPT run because it didn't have enough passengers, only if the plane went tech or the like.

Mate of mine on another forum says this though ...

One of my really good mates works for tiger on the ground crew. Confirms that they cancel flights if they are not full, no matter how that screws the rest of the flights for the day.

I'm dubious, but have the rules regarding RPT changed or is he talking crap?

[Sunstar320]

Airlines dont usually cancel flights on the day because numbers are low, usually 1-2 weeks out pax might get a change of schedule email or something. Tiger was canceling flights due to low numbers back in 2008 within the week of that flight, those days have since gone, and the only reason Tiger will cancel a flights is tech/curfew constraints.

But if a carrier is in desperate need of an aircraft due to another gone tech, then why not cancel the flight headed for Launceston with 50 pax vs 180 waiting to go to sydney.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Back in the aftermath of the Bali Bombing Garuda were routinely flying with twenty or fewer pax. Several flights had more crew than passengers.

I don't know the actual rule, but there would be very few international flights or non-peak hour domestic flights leave the ground if they needed a full load. I haven't seen the load numbers recently but Tiger don't always look full to me when they arrive/depart.

Maybe he was mistaken? I wouldn't be surprised if they had a break-even number, but full or nothing seems a bit unrealistic.

[RampDog]

Garuda GA714/715 DPS-SYD-DPS 22 FEB 11 XNOOP.
They've been running 2 flights daily lately from DPS & CGK, with not great loads. It has been suggested that CGK-DPS-SYD would be more efficient, but hey we're talking airlines here :}, sometimes common sense doesn't come into the equation :ugh:.





Edited due lack of proof reading

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day 18-wheeler

Where would the rules be to prevent an airline cancelling a flight? :confused:

Ansett was a master at doing it, cancelling a flight and combining the pax onto a later service to the same port. The difference with AN of course was that they had a LOT of services and they were a "Service" airline, so they took care of the pax.

The only 'rules' preventing the cancellation of a flight are the rules of Good Customer Service which, in my experience, appear to be non-binding on most Australian airlines (despite the fervent desires of the hard-working staff :ugh: )

[Metro man]

Years ago British Airways did the opposite, on some shuttle services they guaranteed that if you booked and turned up in time you would fly even if they had to roll out a BAC 1-11 just for you.

[tail wheel]

In the days of the Two Airline Agreement, operating aircraft type, schedules and fares required prior approval and cancelled flights were reported to DCA.

Since the Two Airline Agreement was abolished, there is no rule that would prohibit an airline cancelling a scheduled domestic flight.

[airtags]

one domestic carrier actually used to make a PA ...
"due to commercial reasons [flight number] has been cancelled....."

[Cactusjack]

The airline will also cancel or delay a perfectly scheduled on time flight at times. A very basic example as follows :
Two JQ flights sit on the tarmac in AVV. Both servicable. Time is 2000 and one flight is headed to SYD and one to BNE with the same departure time. Pax are yet to board. ( I would say 'Guests' if it was a DJ flight).The SYD aircraft craps out on the tarmac which creates a curfew dilema. No probs, switch aircraft, SYD pax board what was the BNE aircraft and depart with enough time spare to beat curfew into SYD. The BNE pax are told their aircraft has shat itself ( the pax are normally none the wiser) and they enjoy their 5 hour delay at the exciting AVV and arrive into BNE at 0200 or so not even knowing that their original aircraft in pristine condition has got SYD pax home on time while the poor BNE pax get dudded simply because their home town does not have a curfew and they were given the clapped out SYD plane which is now repaired. At the end of the day the airline has saved itself a lot of money getting those pax back to SYD.

But wait for the bonus, the AVV/BNE flight, (remember this is hypothetical) lets say it was JQ 666 gets cancelled (not really) and is rescheduled to depart AVV 5 hours later as JQ 9666. It has now got a new flight number and actually is on time, not delayed at all, as the new flight number (JQ 9666) actually departs on time at its scheduled time of 2345 !

It's all part of the game !

[Worrals in the wilds]

Good point Cactusjack. I remember the Big Q doing the same thing in Brisbane late one night when the Sydney bound aircraft blew a gasket and the Melbourne pax got punted off their ready to go 737 so the Sydneysiders could make curfew.

A well meaning but rather ill advised terminal PA by the CS manager went something along the lines of 'we know all our Melbourne customers will be understanding of the delay so the Sydney passengers can get home tonight'. The loud, heartfelt and fairly fruity comments from the Melbourne departure gate suggested that those passengers didn't believe in the big picture :eek:. FWIW, thanks to the LAMEs they got out about an hour behind schedule, so everyone slept in their own beds that night (unless they'd planned otherwise :}). Probably bad PR practice on the part of the CS manager, but at least he was honest. I'm one of the dwindling number of people who appreciate that.

[18-Wheeler]

Thanks for clearing that up chaps.

[peuce]

To quote from one of my recent airline tickets:

9.2 Cancellation, Changes of Schedules: At any time after a booking has
been made we may change our schedules and/or cancel, terminate, divert,
postpone reschedule or delay any flight where we reasonably consider this
to be justified by circumstances beyond our control or for reasons of safety
or commercial reasons.

[training wheels]

Garuda GA714/715 DPS-SYD-DPS 22 FEB 11 XNOOP.
They've been running 2 flights daily lately from DPS & CGK, with not great loads. It has been suggested that CGK-DPS-SYD would be more efficient, but hey we're talking airlines here :}, sometimes common sense doesn't come into the equation :ugh:.

Garuda has 11 domestic flights a day from CGK to DPS .. wouldn't it make more sense to feed DPS-SYD with these than start the international flight from CGK?

[The Voice]

DJ are pretty good at combining flights at the last minute .. the last time I travelled with them the reason given was exactly that - light load on the 1700 flight saw that service withdrawn and pax transferred onto a later flight ..

[fridge magnet]

Where would the rules be to prevent an airline cancelling a flight?

It would come under misleading and deceptive conduct in the Trade Practices Act. Breaches here are hard to prove as evidence would be hard to come by - and the airlines know it!

[capt.cynical]

A bit like saying "Insider Trading does not occur at Board level" :ok::yuk:

Who put the wings on that PIG :E

[Dangnammit]

I know someone that works in the ops department for the budget carrier. A flight will be cancelled and those pax are shoved onto the later flight. Apparently it is not that uncommon.

[Stationair8]

The yield management team at Ansett were very good at doing that when loads were light, flight would go unserviceable and they would move passengers onto the next available flight.

[Towering Q]

DJ did a similar thing to my family, PD-PH turned into PD-BRM-PH due to an 'únserviceable aircraft'. No more fly DJ!

[teresa green]

Twenty Pax or less always involved a faulty cargo door in TAA, Sorry, wait for the next.

[D.Lamination]

Hey Teresa - we never did that!
look at this video YouTube - T.A.A 1975 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_TC4Agh1vs)

Not a U/S cargo door in sight in the days of the "Jetset":E

[OpsNormal]

Horatio wrote:
The only 'rules' preventing the cancellation of a flight are the rules of Good Customer Service which, in my experience, appear to be non-binding on most Australian airlines (despite the fervent desires of the hard-working staff )

Ahhhh, nope.

Different states have differing requirements, and in many instances the more restrictive legislation upon an operator is not the CAR's or the Act but the relevant State legislation/Act. In NSW - for argument sake, would be the Air Transport Act, which has the ability to place any condition (which includes minimum frequency) that it pleases on any route that the operator applies for as long as it isn't interstate/thru KSA/or to any of the listed deregulated ports, ie; a regulated route.

Transport NSW (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/air/air-licence.html)

Air Transport Act 1964 No 36
(http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act%2B36%2B1964%2BFIRST%2B0%2BN/)

Which is one reason I was concerned when I found out that someone I know said there was nothing stopping an operator connecting a couple of dots on the map whenever and in whatever order they pleased....

If you feel like you might need something to combat insomnia on any level... DoIT (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/) (an oxymoron of an acronymn if ever there was one)....:yuk:

[teresa green]

Thanks for that Lamination, made the heart miss a beat. Still what they told the public, had little to do with what actually happened! As in all airlines! Loved those aircraft. Best time ever. :D

[Captain Sherm]

Ah....thank goodness an aging and wistfully nostalgic Sherm had a headache and left work early so can let a tear or two fill the eye now without too many sniggersfrom the younger folk . That clip of the beautiful '9 and the heart stoppingly awesome 727 were just wonderful. Thanks DL for posting that. In '75 a very young Sherm had one year under his belt in the RHS of the '9, and learned in that time (and the next three years til moving to the right seat of the sheltered workshop) almost all of the basics that have kept Sherm alive, and Mrs. Sherm and the Shermettes fed, clothed and educated in the many years, bases, routes and types, since then.

The '9 was simply wonderful and they eventually gave me one of my own to play with! Being 35, naturally I knew it all! Then, topped that with a 727 to enjoy the best that aviation had to offer. Perfect pattern.....operate flight 4 MEL-PER, then deadhead back next day in the best first class service going on flight 5. Or, if flying back, sniffing an industrial strength tailwind, run it up to .89 ish to see if we could break the record. Or when F/O's wife had gone into labour and he wanted to get home, ADL-MEL in 52 minutes, chock to chock....climb 390 to 410/.87, cruise .88 and descend .88/390 for straight in '09. Or Ted Munro showing me how to enter downwind in DRW at 380kts in the -100.....

Deep sigh...time for a single malt on the balcony and a long stare over the South China Sea. Nothing could match that long-past time and that world. Not even matched by the thousands of hours and many years, in Sherm's beloved 777 in the deepest loneliest arctic night skies or the MD-80 with a wild-eyed innocent in the RHS during an approach in monsoon or heavy snow time in Asia.

Is Eddy Clark still around? I just must buy him a beer when next on leave if he is with us. How many men have ever built a fleet like he did. Or Ken Fox....where are their equals now?

I sometimes wonder whether '89 was the only way that world could have properly ended. It needed an abrupt cessation, lest it grow frail and old.

But....thread drift over....no airline has ever guaranteed a flight will operate. Passengers, since aviation time began, have always been well advised to book a much earlier flight if timing was vital. Nothing to do with deceptive practice at all. It's just the business, always has been.

[teresa green]

Oh stop it Sherm. Flying into DRW in the moonlight on the sexiest aircraft ever, the 9, looking forward to the feed at the Greek blokes in Smith St, the best tucker ever, then up to the DRW hotel for a few cleansing ales before a bit of a kip, and the beautiful girl waiting on the tarmac for her crew, sob, and they PAID us to enjoy her company. Lucky us.

[The SSK]

In Europe we have laws against that kind of thing, EU Regulation 261/2004 to be precise. Commercial cancellations carry the same penalty as bumping overbooked passengers – compensation of €250 short-haul, €400 medium-haul and €600 long-haul, no quibbles. Except that of course the airlines call it a tech problem and therefore outside their control. But there’s an ambulance-chasing law firm which tracks the daily operation of every individual aircraft and will fight claimants’ cases for a trifling 27% of the settlement plus €25.

Nice to see lawyerrs prospering, by doing no more than protecting the interests of their clients.

[gruntyfen]

Had a colleague that engaged in dialogue with an LCC when his flight was cancelled. The airline stated that the penalties weren't payable as it was a technical safety issue. Either a lightning strike or catering truck. However, eagle eyed Dave spotted the hte Stansted and Milan aircraft had been swapped. The flight to Stansted duly cancelled and the flight to Italy went ahead. Therefore Dave was able to state that it was a commercial decision to swap aircraft and cancel the Stansted flight to resolve the technical/safety issue with the Milan flight. (A number of people used to carry a copy of 261/2004.) He was told to **** off, but got his compensation.

[aerocom]

Have just had familys flight cancalled from nz to aus on DJ direct service. one month out the call centre lady of asian accent claimed it was due to engine problems, but the air nz flight at the same time is charging full price, is this a scam.