European Airlines Are Operating 18,000 Empty Flights Because of a Dumb Rule | Hacker News Reader

European Airlines Are Operating 18,000 Empty Flights Because of a Dumb Rule

vice.com

13 pointsthe-dude32 comments

I hear buses and trains also operate on schedules. I also remember taxis roaming around empty.

Buses and trains follow set routes. When the last person exits at station A and the next person is waiting at station C, the train itself still needs to get to station C, and it can't skip station B because there's no way of telling if somebody might show up by the time the train gets there.

That sounds like a feature request or opportunity for improvement. Sensors at the station to know if it is occupied. Some stations already have security cameras and modern security camera systems can detect motion so the foundation may already be in some places.

My company is selling such sensors. Europe only.

IoT sensors can do a lot of useful things for trains. Such as checking if a long train in Siberia lost a few wagons. Check if a door will break in a month or two.

Is this happening a lot in Siberia, long trains losing wagons?

Apparently yes.

No one is forcing them to fly the planes. If they lost the slots to a competitor that has passengers, that’s how it should be.

Thanks for saying that out loud. Companies have become accustomed to blame others for the company own behavior. Nobody forces then to fly that planes, they do it because they want.

A company is in business to make profit. A company isn't a human being and doesn't have a "behaviour". You can't trust a company to do the right thing. However, you can trust a company to follow the law, and therefore we need legislative restrictions to make sure their actions have no negative consequences on society.

Simple solution: Don't count empty flights towards their minimum. If you fly at less than, say, 20% capacity more than 20% of the time, you should lose slots because you clearly don't need them.

This. Because burning money to prevent competitors accessing shared resources is just anti-competitive.

> You can't trust a company to do the right thing.

I agree to some extend. But for any society to work there needs to be a minimum of good will, if companies continue pushing the boundaries of what is reasonable they are going to end breaking the system. It's very expensive and inefficient to have to be validating each action that a company does.

> therefore we need legislative restrictions to make sure their actions have no negative consequences on society.

On this I fully agree. The laws need to be adapted to the situation. Society should use the government power to make companies behave in a way that makes society better.

Are you intentionally missing the point? There are no passengers. They are planning to burn 100s of thousands of tons of CO2 because of a rule that is not taking into account unprecedented situations like the one we are living now.

It is fixable, that's why it's important to share this information, and that's why Belgium’s mobility minister has written to the European Commission to demand a law change (per the article).

But no, that's not how it should be.

I don’t think I’m missing the point, I think the point is a bit different. They’re flying empty planes because they want to keep gates away from other airlines. That’s on them. They don’t need to fly the planes.

The real story is “Lufhansa plans to waste massive carbon to prevent competition.” They’re not the innocent bystander here.

This is not how it works at all.

Slots are extremely valuable, they are highly regulated because they are in such demand.

These aren't just things you take and leave at random.

> Slots are extremely valuable

Well, the reality that they have to fly empty kind of contradicts this.

These aren't items that are bought and sold. If you give up your slot, you can not buy it back at any price.

Now your have to re-route your whole airline network.

The value is in terms of not bankrupting your company.

Businesses come and go. I admit I don’t know how many gates Lufthansa acquired when competitors went out of business or were acquired by them, how many have been theirs since each terminal opened. Since in the past they were smaller, it is obvious that gates are something that can be acquired. Maybe not on the ideal schedule, but such is life.

Brussels Airport has plenty of expansion planned. Airports get bigger over time, not smaller.

And if an airline that actually has passengers gets the slots, that’s worthwhile. That Brussels would give unused slots to someone else that lacks passengers too would be a silly thing, the kind of silly thing that’s all too likely too.

I’m not saying it’s a good rule to have at this juncture. But what’s good for Lufthansa is not necessarily good for the world.

Inspire is a better word than force. Or choose.

Burning money to keep competitors away from resources is anti-competitive.

You're making a strawman / false equivalence.

They are forcing them to fly the planes.

The company has already decided the value of the slots exceed the lost passenger revenue.

The company could not fly the plane, but the governments rules force the situation.

The rules were changed during covid to alleviate this, but now that the rules have changed back, we see the same situation again.

Imagine if you were faced with an equivalent dilemma:

You are in a situation where you will lose the right to park in your own garage for a year.

To keep your garage rights all you have to do is drive around aimlessly for an hour.

Do you decide the environment is more important, or do you want to park in your garage?

The decision is on me. If the environment is actually important, I drop the space. If I’m spending the next year just driving aimlessly to keep the space, I don’t really need it.

Please quote the text of the article which claims they are being forced to fly? In fact you do claim it’s the company’s decision that this is the best course of action, acknowledging the alternative that’s plainly available.

It's the law.

Just Google 'use it or lose it slot rule'

It was dropped in March 2020, but recently brought back since the committee thought the pandemic was 'over'.

Here is an article I googled for you:

https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-ghost-flights/

I think this was discussed here a day or two ago.

Yes, there is the “or lose it” option. There is no forcing. They have the option. I can understand that they don’t like the rule. But to say they are forced is like saying your friends forced you to to go to a movie with them. It’s not forcing in any way.

“Inspiring” is probably the right word.

Except your friends said : last time we'll ask.

> They have the option

That option is to lose their slot, if they lose their slots, they will probably lose an entire hub on their network that they can not regain.

It's not like you can just buy these slots back. In fact, slots are valuable for the simple reason that they can not be bought and sold. (unless airlines consolidate, and even then these transactions are heavily scrutinized)

You're basically saying it is better for them to tank their business so another airline can steal the slots from them.

And do you know what the competition will do? They will keep that slot at all cost regardless of whether their planes are full or not, because this is how airlines maintain their network.

Please consider familiarizing yourself with airline network operations before speaking authoritatively on the subject.

I’m well aware. It’s still their choice. It is absolutely a choice for them to behave this way. Why would any of us take the side of Lufthansa over the side of another airline? Possibly one that is actually flying passengers around? I’d respect them more if they said “we actually believe it’s a stupid idea to burn fuel pointlessly, we’ll take the side of the world’s good over our own medium-term interests”.

Your analogy doesn't hold water. This is your garage, and you'd lose the rights to it by not using it.

A better one would be:

You have a reserved parking spot near a nice beach; but you will have to visit this beach at least 20 times during the summer or you will lose your reservation.

Does this make sense? Depends on your goal. If you want fair access to the beach for as many people as possible, no. If you want a smaller number of regulars that will spend many days at the beach and might be more willing to maybe buy some ice cream at your chiringuito, yes.

The actual problem also translates well to this analogy: You might drive all the way to the beach only to park for 10 minutes and drive back, only to keep your privilege for those days where you really want to use it.

Your analogy is slightly better, but even then it still misses the whole idea of hubs and connecting flights, because it's not just your trip to the beach, it's a whole network of cars trips to the beach that also depend on your trip to the beach in order for the system to function.

Once you start removing trips and other people take your parking spot, you don't always get your parking spot back or even one close, sometimes you might have to find all your cars a new beach to use.

You may find reasons to favor yourself, of course. But if you’re just diddling around not making use of your slots, and someone else can be, the greater good is served by opening up the spot for someone else.

So this is how Lufthansa spends its covid bailout money. Nice.

Haven't they paid it back?

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/lufthansa...

They have. But it doesn't change the fact that the bailout helped them to maintain their market dominance which they now perpetuate by abusing the rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com