Flight late arriving - advanced ticket

[Old Timer]

Oh well, it's not just me then

No, no fear there.

Its an unfortunate fact of life that historically through Nationalisation, we now have this appalling culture that remains which in effect means that the Railways can never ever be right, and passengers behave in a way that simply would not be (and indeed is not) tolerated in other public service Industries.

People still regard the Railways as something they pay for through their taxes thus entitling them to do as they wish, and the media scum still pander to this.

 

[MCR247]

if you want a cheap inflexible ticket, i'd guess it safe to book it for a 4-5 hours after your flight lands, whats the chance of a plane being that late?

I've been 24+ hours late before


(and as odd as it sounds, it lost all of that time on the way )

 

[jon0844]

Obviously wasn't Ryanair then. They'd have factored that in to their schedule so you'd have technically still arrived a few minutes early!

 

[mickey]

That's not what my annual travel policy says:

Simple scheduled delays aren't covered unless they can be tied to a specific, insured cause. I doubt it would cover paying for a train ticket if my plane home is late for reasons other than weather or breakdown, and as you say the excess would wipe out most or all of the benefit anyway.

The line about 'failure to run to a scheduled timetable' was lifted from my own policy so it definitely does vary by company! I will add though that there is a disclaimer about knowingly leaving enough time for the journey but, having checked it out, in practice this just means getting at least one train/bus before the last one that should get you there in time.

 

[MikeWh]

Being a football fan myself. Whilst the original posts may have sounded harsh, Flamingo is totally right. I behave myself, keep myself to myself, and the only giveaway is the football top im wearing. If others want to mess about and be a nuisance, then I dont want them onboard either.
As long as your a well behaved football fan, there is no need to be offended by what Flamingo said.

Well I'm also a football fan and use trains to get to all matches. I'm afraid I was offended by Flamingo's original post because there didn't seem to be any scope for a decent football fan, but now it's clarified I'm ok too. For the record I've been on trains where the crowd has got rowdy and I know how intimidating it can be, once even it was fans of my own club! But most weeks the trains leaving Norwood Junction rapidly fill up and the existing passengers usually take no notice, or even ask us what the score was. It's all very cordial.

 

[Flamingo]

Well I'm also a football fan and use trains to get to all matches. I'm afraid I was offended by Flamingo's original post because there didn't seem to be any scope for a decent football fan, but now it's clarified I'm ok too. For the record I've been on trains where the crowd has got rowdy and I know how intimidating it can be, once even it was fans of my own club! But most weeks the trains leaving Norwood Junction rapidly fill up and the existing passengers usually take no notice, or even ask us what the score was. It's all very cordial.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence.

If it is all happy and cordial, then that is my favourite type of train

 

[WestCoast]

Obviously wasn't Ryanair then. They'd have factored that in to their schedule so you'd have technically still arrived a few minutes early!

All airlines pad their schedules (the same way that a rail operator does!) to a certain degree, as is recommended by the relevant bodies. It's better for passengers (they can allow more time!) and it makes business sense as well as making most flights appear on-time. That airline's use of many secondary airports plays a larger role. Budget airlines will also often fly many sectors in a day, meaning that they have to ensure than a small delay on one trip doesn't have massive knock-on effects for the rest of the day.

 

[Roylang]

All airlines pad their schedules (the same way that a rail operator does!) to a certain degree, as is recommended by the relevant bodies. It's better for passengers (they can allow more time!) and it makes business sense as well as making most flights appear on-time. That airline's use of many secondary airports plays a larger role. Budget airlines will also often fly many sectors in a day, meaning that they have to ensure than a small delay on one trip doesn't have massive knock-on effects for the rest of the day.

Not sure that this is true. The flight timetable is normally based upon the average flight time between city pairs on teh company preferred route. Some days you will lose time as a result of a head-wind, on others gain it through a tail-wind. In most cases the aircraft will operate flight between a city-pair and then back again, winds typically averaging out.

In most cases budget airlines will plan for a very short turn-around, typically 20 minutes. They will not want, or plan, to spend longer on the ground than this as in many cases they will be charegd for stand utilisation. Also, that 20 minute turn-around may result in the aircraft operating an extra sector in a day - drastically improving its profitability.

Don't get confused by the timetable saying that the flight takes 1 hour 15 and the pilot saying that "today we have a flight time of 55 minutes". The "flight time" is time in the air, the timetable has also to allow for the time to push back off stand, taxi to the runway and taxi from the runway to the stand at the other end of the journey.

Roy

 

[WestCoast]

Not sure that this is true. The flight timetable is normally based upon the average flight time between city pairs on teh company preferred route. Some days you will lose time as a result of a head-wind, on others gain it through a tail-wind. In most cases the aircraft will operate flight between a city-pair and then back again, winds typically averaging out

You are correct, it is based on that, plus a bit extra. I probably didn't state why I believe it takes place well enough in my post and to be fair it's usually not for commercial reasons (although perhaps the desire to stay on-time could be classed as that). The schedule has to take many factors into account (winds as you identify), plus contingency time. If padding didn't happen, there would be issues as the scheduling would be insufficient. The contingency time is the padding, which I feel is justified on any mode of transport.

Don't get confused by the timetable saying that the flight takes 1 hour 15 and the pilot saying that "today we have a flight time of 55 minutes". The "flight time" is time in the air, the timetable has also to allow for the time to push back off stand, taxi to the runway and taxi from the runway to the stand at the other end of the journey.

It's always gate-to-gate, I am aware of that. However, some airports will obviously have quicker taxi times than others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, swerving back to the railways after this OT diversion, it is better to give a later figure of arrival (and then arrive before that time), so passengers can book rail tickets at an appropriate time. Encouraging rail use to/from the airport should be a priority, it does seem to be an after thought at some provincial airports. Teeside Airport being the prime example of an underused rail facility. I know it isn't directly near the terminal, but it does seem like a lost opportunity for public transport journeys.

 

[Roylang]

It's always gate-to-gate, I am aware of that. However, some airports will obviously have quicker taxi times than others.

Indeed, a lot of working is now ongoing to better understand taxi times and to be able to determine the runway in use at aerodromes to apply this more correctly. In my experience through, padding on schedules is almost non-existant, pressure being placed on ground-crew to turnaround* an aircraft quicker to make up for any lost time and to achieve take-off slots.

Again, bringing it back on topic, it amazes me how often the connection between an airport and the station is not promoted more, not just here but elsewhere in Europe. Take Southampton as an example, I heard that the initial plan for the new footbridge had been to take it right across the road to the terminal. Didn't happen, so now you are still left trying to drag luggage across the road with a poorly marked crossing whilst dodging the drivers looking right on the roundabout to see if cars are coming and not looking left to see if the crossing is clear

Roy

*I worked on a large project to analyse the schedules and turnaround process for one of the big airline groups.

 

[WestCoast]

Indeed, a lot of working is now ongoing to better understand taxi times and to be able to determine the runway in use at aerodromes to apply this more correctly. In my experience through, padding on schedules is almost non-existant, pressure being placed on ground-crew to turnaround* an aircraft quicker to make up for any lost time and to achieve take-off slots.

This Report might interest you, it is a study in the US Aviation market. I am by no means an expert in this area.

Again, bringing it back on topic, it amazes me how often the connection between an airport and the station is not promoted more, not just here but elsewhere in Europe. Take Southampton as an example, I heard that the initial plan for the new footbridge had been to take it right across the road to the terminal. Didn't happen, so now you are still left trying to drag luggage across the road with a poorly marked crossing whilst dodging the drivers looking right on the roundabout to see if cars are coming and not looking left to see if the crossing is clear

I agree, it's not good enough. Depends on the airport though, of course. Amsterdam has a well signed rail station below the main entrance hall - brilliant! Birmingham has the people mover and Manchester has the "skywalk" - so it can be done in the UK. However, it's not always that easy to find where the public transport is!

 

[Roylang]

This Report might interest you, it is a study in the US Aviation market. I am by no means an expert in this area.

Off topic to start I know, but it does get back to rail...

It is an interesting report and, funnily enough, I am in the middle of a four day meeting where one of the guys attending is from MIT. It does look to have a very American slant to it where internal flights are treated more like bus journeys despite often being longer in duration than many European short-haul.

In Europe we are always pushing to get more with less resources and are using regulation (law) to drive this. There is an acceptance that the airpsace is very full and we will not get many more airports/runways (if any). This has led to planning being based more and more on what should be possible in an ideal world. This does also try to address a better prediction of what the world we be like on any given day.

There are number of people who work in the European Commission's Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport who are looking at future rail policies for a more efficient and effective rail network. I have had a few lively debates with them trying to separate the feasible from the pipe-dream. At some levels there seems to be the concept that throw enough money at any problem and it can be resolved. An idea that one person raised with me at one point was a plan to harmonise the gauge and loading gauge across the whole of the EU. Now, how much would that cost :?

Roy

 

[richw]

I drove up to pick some relations from Gatwick last night (they needed picking up due to my grans disabilities). I observed on the arrivals just one late arrival, (due at approx 1900, expected approx 0500), but think of how many planes are on the arrival board, (it was 3 pages long) and have 1 late out of the lot. I think the odds are pretty safe to gamble on an advance ticket.

 

[Roylang]

I drove up to pick some relations from Gatwick last night (they needed picking up due to my grans disabilities). I observed on the arrivals just one late arrival, (due at approx 1900, expected approx 0500), but think of how many planes are on the arrival board, (it was 3 pages long) and have 1 late out of the lot. I think the odds are pretty safe to gamble on an advance ticket.

Whilst I agree with you that in general on-time flight arrivals are good, looking at the board yesterday morning may have left you with a different opinion. Bad weather in London led to flow restriction at the airports. Heathrow was very badly hit.

The time of year is worth considering when deciding how likely a flight it to arrive on time and when to book an AP ticket. Weather accounts for about 1/3 of flight delays.

Roy

 

[WestCoast]

It is an interesting report and, funnily enough, I am in the middle of a four day meeting where one of the guys attending is from MIT. It does look to have a very American slant to it where internal flights are treated more like bus journeys despite often being longer in duration than many European short-haul.

Well, I can see where that attitude comes from, flying to them is like taking the train. However, I can relate the notion of a bus journey to a flight on Europe's 2nd largest airline (from the Emerald Isle) measured by passengers carried.

The time of year is worth considering when deciding how likely a flight it to arrive on time and when to book an AP ticket. Weather accounts for about 1/3 of flight delays.

Snow + UK transport network = disaster! Well, not always but still. That goes for road, rail and air. Common sense seems to have prevailed with regards to AP ticketing in bad weather in recent years.

 

[jon0844]

Budget airlines will also often fly many sectors in a day, meaning that they have to ensure than a small delay on one trip doesn't have massive knock-on effects for the rest of the day.

Tell me about it. I can't remember a late flight back from Sweden where it hasn't been delayed due to ongoing delays throughout the day; such that I eventually realised you simply don't book that flight however cheap it is.

Even if you don't have a problem arriving late, the ground staff do and it can take hours to get out of the airport (Stansted) as half the UK Border staff have gone and the baggage staff left are dealing with a whole load of late flights in one go.

 

[Wolfie]

This Report might interest you, it is a study in the US Aviation market. I am by no means an expert in this area.



I agree, it's not good enough. Depends on the airport though, of course. Amsterdam has a well signed rail station below the main entrance hall - brilliant! Birmingham has the people mover and Manchester has the "skywalk" - so it can be done in the UK. However, it's not always that easy to find where the public transport is!

Agreed it is variable. Stansted and Gatwick are very good, as is London City. Heathrow, given the size of the place, does well - some walking but everything is clear....

 

[jon0844]

I presume London Southend will be quite good too?

 

[island]

[RANT]The application of "London" as a prefix or descriptor to anywhere other than City or Heathrow should be banned as misleading![/RANT]

 

[richw]

isnt gatwick nearer brighton than london?

 

[WestCoast]

[RANT]The application of "London" as a prefix or descriptor to anywhere other than City or Heathrow should be banned as misleading![/RANT]

If we are being very strict geographically it is misleading. However, one must consider the reasons behind it. While residents of the UK are likely to know that Gatwick is relatively near London, do foreign businesses and incoming tourists know that? Perhaps not I would say. If the names were changed, I bet most airlines would pay no attention whatsoever and continue referring to them as "London".

Even so, while Heathrow is actually in Greater London, it may not be more convenient for certain areas of the conurbation. I would argue for those in the financial heart of London, catching a train from Liverpool Street to Stansted or Southend may be just as quick, if not quicker than a trip to Heathrow. London's airports seem perfectly fine when Frankfurt Hahn is 76 miles away from the city it is supposed to serve!

Additionally, Gatwick has been designated as London Gatwick for an extremely long period of time.

 

[AlterEgo]

[RANT]The application of "London" as a prefix or descriptor to anywhere other than City or Heathrow should be banned as misleading![/RANT]

Heathrow's not in London...

 

[Flamingo]

I'm reminded of the old chestnut about Ryanair, a few years ago after an attempted hijacking in Sweden, an alledged transcript of the cockpit tapes went as follows@

"Fly this plane to London, Infidel!"
"We are going to London"
"No you're not, Stanstead is nowhere near London - and I'm not paying for this coffee either!"

Afterwards, a police spokesman said that there was zero risk of the plane being crashed into a London landmark, as no Ryanair flight had ever gone near the centre of a major city.

 

[Roylang]

[RANT]The application of "London" as a prefix or descriptor to anywhere other than City or Heathrow should be banned as misleading![/RANT]

Or Northolt, which does not have it applied!

Roy

 

[WestCoast]

I'm reminded of the old chestnut about Ryanair, a few years ago after an attempted hijacking in Sweden, an alledged transcript of the cockpit tapes went as follows@

Well, they do push it a bit, "Paris" Beauvais - *cough* 100km *cough*. A bit further than Stansted to Central London eh? On the flip side, they used to fly to the Belfast City airport, when much of the competition flew to the international airport, further away from the city. So, it's not always true.

 

[island]

Even so, while Heathrow is actually in Greater London, it may not be more convenient for certain areas of the conurbation. I would argue for those in the financial heart of London, catching a train from Liverpool Street to Stansted or Southend may be just as quick, if not quicker than a trip to Heathrow. London's airports seem perfectly fine when Frankfurt Hahn is 76 miles away from the city it is supposed to serve!

Additionally, Gatwick has been designated as London Gatwick for an extremely long period of time.

That much is true; I would rather Gatwick to Heathrow. Mind you, the new owners seem to be dropping the London tag from the branding.

 

[mickey]

On the flip side, they used to fly to the Belfast City airport, when much of the competition flew to the international airport, further away from the city. So, it's not always true.

As they do with Gothenburg City - as opposed to Landvetter.

Plus, if you're actually travelling somewhere like Bremen or Liverpool, for example, it's much better than the old-fashioned airlines' 'centrally located' airports of Hamburg and Manchester!

 

[Flamingo]

Plus, if you're actually travelling somewhere like Bremen or Liverpool, for example, it's much better than the old-fashioned airlines' 'centrally located' airports of Hamburg and Manchester!

Yea, but that was only because they couldn't leave the planes overnight in Liverpool without finding them jacked up with the wheels missing in the morning








Is that my train? Gotta run

 

[WestCoast]

Plus, if you're actually travelling somewhere like Bremen or Liverpool, for example, it's much better than the old-fashioned airlines' 'centrally located' airports of Hamburg and Manchester!

You can walk from the airport to the city centre in Bremen, it's very much a part of the city.

Liverpool involves a clumsy trip via the South Parkway if it's rail, which isn't ideal, but a rail extension to the airport isn't likely at the moment.

Yea, but that was only because they couldn't leave the planes overnight in Liverpool without finding them jacked up with the wheels missing in the morning

Is that my train? Gotta run

Good job you don't work for Merseyrail is all I can say....

 

[mickey]

You can walk from the airport to the city centre in Bremen, it's very much a part of the city.

Liverpool involves a clumsy trip via the South Parkway if it's rail, which isn't ideal, but a rail extension to the airport isn't likely at the moment.

I know about Bremen, I've been!

And I always use the 82A/500 in Liverpool. My point was that not everyone wants to go to BA's (and others') 'central' airports.