Marginal Revolution: How petty can my worries get?

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« iPod thanks | Main | Speculative hypotheses about the evolutionary functionality of laughter »

How petty can my worries get?

Forget about avian flu, I hate waiting in line to board a plane. But what is the answer?

United Airlines says it believes it has hit on a better solution. It recently announced a logistics ploy it calls Wilma - shorthand for window-middle-aisle - that it claims will cut boarding times by four to five minutes, an eternity in the industry's on-time takeoff sweepstakes. The idea is to fill the window seats in economy class first, then the middle seats, then the aisle seats, thereby eliminating the free-for-all chaos that clogs the cabin when passengers are sent in by row numbers.

Southwest, of course, eliminates the whole idea of assigned seats. Or how about some economics? Charge people for each carry-on, since the bag makes it harder to board (and get off) quickly. Or have an electronic record of when people manage to reach their seats and buckle their seatbelt. The sooner you buckle, relative to your position in the plane of course, the greater your chance of a prize or rebate. Small ideas for a much better world, as they say.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 22, 2005 at 07:38 AM in Economics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/3403807

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How petty can my worries get?:

» Improving on United's New Boarding Procedure from View From the Wing
Tyler Cowen wonders if, instead of United's new plan involving boarding passengers assigned to window seats first, airlines would save more time charging for carryons (making passengers internalize the costs of lengthy boarding processes) or awarding p... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 23, 2005 1:59:40 PM

Tracked on Oct 23, 2005 2:01:27 PM

Comments

Personally, I hope this doesn't catch on. I try my hardest to get an aisle seat especially on long flights because it's so much easier to get up to the bathroom or just stand up to stretch. But I also like to board early so I can assure myself of ample overhead bin space. Under this plan, the aisle people would be at a disadvantage in the competition for overhead bin space.

I recall that some airline tried this a few years ago and had to abandon it. Basically the problem is that people travelling together will board together no matter what (even if they're not seated together) and the gate agents don't really enforce the boarding rules too strictly.

Posted by: Bob Lawson at Oct 22, 2005 9:21:59 AM

I refuse to fly any airline that does not allow me to choose an assigned seat at the time I purchase my ticket. I will not fly Southwest under any circumstances and would boycott United if they implemented a rule like this.

There's a difference between a rule not working and a rule not being enforced. I agree that carry-on bags are a big part of the problem, but only because the "one above, one below" rule is NEVER enforced anywhere.

The solution is simply to enforce that rule: have each airline send a representative to stop people AT SECURITY to turn them back if they violate the carry-on limits.

Also, what if you have a large group flying? If you separate them at boarding, then they're simply going to play the "would you mind switching with me" roulette, which could delay take-off ever more.

Posted by: KipEsquire at Oct 22, 2005 9:48:19 AM

For me, the irritating wait is not getting on the airplane, it's getting off. Getting on, I'm in no hurry because the plane isn't going to leave when I sit down. And I haven't been cooped up for hours. But waiting to get off just wastes my time and tries my patience. But I don't see any prospect of airlines being able to enforce specific unloading procedures.

Posted by: Slocum at Oct 22, 2005 9:49:16 AM

I love the comment above about getting off planes - it's the exact opposite of my philosophy on the issue. After all, all those fools that jump to their feet the minute that a plane hits the runway end up standing half squat, being chastised by air hostesses and generally gettingg uncomfortable for a few minutes, with their bags hovering half in and half out of the overhead lockers.

My view is that the longer you've spent on a flight the less rational it is to fight over 10 minutes of time at the end of it: it's a smaller (proportional) deal to me. So when everyone else is stampeding, I put my headphones on, wait for the aisles to clear and read a book. After all, you'll meet the same idiots cursing (and having waiting ten minutes) at the baggage reclaim belt anyway.

Posted by: Ross Parker at Oct 22, 2005 12:39:36 PM

Southwest's no-reserved-seats policy actually produces a nice incentive to get into line quickly and not drag your feet getting onto the plane. If you're the last person on the plane, you'll be sitting in the backward-facing seat between two Sumo wrestlers. I'm not sure how this has changed now that they give you your boarding pass and class (A-C usually) online if you ask--if you aren't there by the time group B boards, your A card will not save you from the Sumo wrestlers.

The downsides are obvious, especially if you end up with a tight connecting flight or something. But the whole tradeoff may still be worthwhile. (It is for me.)

Posted by: albatross at Oct 22, 2005 12:45:10 PM

Charging people for each carry-on bag sounds good, but the electronic record
plan is a nonstarter, given the economic realities of the airlines.
As for the NYT article, it has a typical misuse of "anarchy," which I, as a
card-carrying member of the Anarchist Antidefamation League, resent.

Posted by: Bill Stepp at Oct 22, 2005 1:18:52 PM

The person who came up with that name should be fired immediately. Why would you announce a program called Wilma at exactly the same time the U.S. is preparing to be hit be a hurricane of the same name? That's pretty tasteless. They could have at least waited a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Xavier at Oct 22, 2005 1:23:40 PM

My own pet peeve is people who sit in the wrong seat. That always takes a few minutes to straighten out. And of course the airlines could help, at virtually no cost, by marking the row numbers and seats much more clearly.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Oct 22, 2005 1:50:49 PM

Hey - those are pretty good ideas.

Posted by: Bobby at Oct 22, 2005 4:07:00 PM

What gets me is that those that need more assistance boarding the plane get immediate preference in boarding the plane, be it because of physical limitation, age issues or child constraint. It spreads their externality onto every other passenger on the plane. Airlines help those that need assistance onto the plane because they appreciate the business, and that's fine-- but they are lumping boarding preference with the need for boarding assistance.

Naturally, the plane will take off at the same time regardless of whether those needing extra assistance board the plane first or last, so it wouldn't make a difference in terms of departure time-- but if the goal is to get to your seat quicker once the boarding process starts, boarding those that need extra assistance last seems to be the equitable solution.

Of course, providing boarding preference to those who take the longest to board creates a greater incentive for those who take the longest to board to travel more which, in turn, creates longer boarding times in general.

And finally, since I'm partial to not having noisy children next to me, I think a child-free airline would clean up.

Posted by: Matt E. Ryan at Oct 22, 2005 4:43:38 PM

At least the principle behind Matt's idea is a good one. Where is the airline with the honesty and nerve to disincentivize and control the annoyances about flying that are actually controllable? And drop the false-smiley customer service in favor of thought-through policies they're willing to enforce.

"Fly us. We're intelligent, not 'nice.' "

Where do I pay?

Posted by: dilys at Oct 22, 2005 5:52:39 PM

Can Matt be serious? Incentives, externalities? Sounds like parody to me. Good one, Matt.

Just in case though, it is probably much easier to help those who need it when the plane is empty than when it is full. Notice that when the plane lands, those needing help are the last to get off, no doubt for that very reason.

Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Oct 22, 2005 6:35:37 PM

Since people who fly together often get the window, middle and aisle seats, what you're trying to do is *split up every group flying together so that they can't board together*. This is simply not going to work. People won't do it. Dad is supposed to get in the front of the line, little Billy in the middle of the line, and Mom at the back of the boarding line? People won't do it. Regardless of whether this would or would not be a faster way to board, it simply won't happen.

You want an economics incentive? Everyone who boards the plane with no more than one small bag gets to push a button at the boarding gate. The button has a 1/100 chance of giving out a free upgrade to business class on a future flight. The overhead bins would clear right up...

Posted by: Anon at Oct 22, 2005 9:31:10 PM

I used to like United, but they've really gone downhill lately. This new boarding process (which has been in use since this summer on the West Coast at least) is a great example of how they're screwing up.

It's a simple thought process, really. Who (generally) wants to sit in the window seats? Tourists, who fly occasionally and pay the least for their tickets. Who (generally) want to sit in the aisle? Business travelers, who fly frequently and pay lots for their tickets because they book late and don't stay over Saturday nights. Business travellers also generally bring rollaboards. So now you've got your best customers inconvenienced because they have to board later and because their bags don't fit and they have to waste time picking them up from baggage claim.

Just stupid.

Posted by: Alfred Norton Onymous at Oct 23, 2005 12:49:53 PM

I've flown about 200 commercial flights in the last 3 years, I'm convinced the single most effective change the airlines could make is to train the flight attendants to help people board. Perhaps even have an additional person for that purpose who does not fly, but goes to help the next flight.

A uniformed person at the back of the plane, who is constantly doing triage to keep the lanes open would make huge difference if they were the least bit competent. They should be putting up big bags, resolving disputes instantly, giving the uncertain firm direction "now", setting a tone of "fun and run".

Here's one example: a lot of times I see someone sitting in Row 27 put their bag above Row 10 as they get on, so they don't have to get it until they are almost off the plane. Someone needs to tell him "No".

Another: Little-old-lady in row 15 needs a little help getting her bag up. She's blocking the lane, and delaying the flight. She will fumble around for 1 minute before starting to ask for help. Somebody needs to aggressively help her and get her seated and out of the way.

Unfortunately flight attendants currently treat the passengers like cattle instead of individuals, making anouncements over the PA that everyone ignores. "This is an extremely full flight; If you have two bags, please place one under the seat infront of you." Instead of "Hello Sir, I'm going to take this bag down and let you put it under your seat until were' loaded. After everyone is on, if we have room, feel free to put it up above."

Posted by: Jim Ward at Oct 23, 2005 4:21:31 PM

The biggest time-waster is carry-on bags. Anything that's going in the overhead bins means time spent finding a spot (sometimes farther down the aisle than your seat, meaning you have to backtrack), hoisting it up there, and retrieving it at the end. In addition to the other suggestions as to how to reduce carry-on luggage, I'd like to see more gate checks, believe it or not.

Flying puddle-jumpers is great. I pack all my stuff in a rolling carry-on, add a small bag for my book and water bottle, and gate-check the carry-on, which doesn't take long and lets people without baggage go ahead of me. Then I find my seat and quickly stash my small bag underneath. After the flight, the gate-checked stuff reaches the tarmac pretty quickly, so I collect my bag and am on my way far before the baggage carousel starts to move. If they could figure out how to implement this on planes large enough that people don't board via the tarmac, I'd love it.

Posted by: Amanda at Oct 23, 2005 5:40:43 PM

Southwest is returning to Denver! Yahoo! I'll take their old 737's (at least they all have the newer fan engines by now) over United anyday.
And, no TV's to boot.

Posted by: Highcountry at Oct 23, 2005 8:50:11 PM

"After all, you'll meet the same idiots cursing (and having waiting ten minutes) at the baggage reclaim belt anyway."

Well, if I've checked any luggage, then I, too, am in no hurry to get off, but I try to avoid checking luggage whenever possible (and it almost always is possible)--retrieving checked bags usually adds another half an hour to the 'flight' (assuming none of the luggage is lost or misdirected -- then it's much worse).

Posted by: Slocum at Oct 23, 2005 9:21:42 PM

The trick is that there are at least four different reasons for wanting things in carry-on bags instead of checked, subject to different incentives:

a. I don't trust the airline not to lose my bag, so I want to keep it on the plane. (Think about your suit when you're flying to an interview--no way you're checking that on a multi-hop flight, so that you can go to an interview in jeans and a t-shirt!)

b. I don't trust the airline not to damage my stuff, so I want to keep it on the plane under my watchful eye. (Think about expensive or breakable gifts.)

c. I want to bypass the baggage claim on the way out, so I want the bags available to me when I get off the plane.

d. I want the actual stuff in my bags with my during the flight. (Think about medicines and laptop computers.)

For (a) and (c), letting me check things at the gate is probably a workable solution. There's just a lot less opportunity to ship my bags to Timbuktu if they're loaded on the airplane just before takeoff and handed back just after landing. For (a) and (b), much better baggage handling would also help, but it would take some time for people to get used to it. If I get to the point of knowing that in practice, bags just never get lost, then I won't need to worry so much about bringing two days' clothes with me onto the plane. There's no question that this is possible, down to some very low failure rate, but whether the airlines and airports care to do the work to accomplish it is another question. The only class you can't get rid of is (d); people who really need the stuff on the plane. That's what you'd like carry-on bags to be.

Posted by: albatross at Oct 24, 2005 9:17:23 AM

I don't fly too often, but when I do my luggage is usually a small carry-on bag for the flight, and a duffel-like bag (not as long, but a little bigger around). That will fit in the overhead bin on bigger planes, but not on the small ones. So if I know I'm going to be on a smaller plane, I'll check the bag, because then I don't have to lug it around for an hour and a half before boarding. But if I had a wheeled bag, I might do things differently. (Of course, on those flights, I'm usually travelling with people who have bigger bags and have no choice but to check them, so gate-checking wouldn't really save me any time.) My point is just that not having to keep your bags with you can be a positive.

Posted by: Devin McCullen at Oct 24, 2005 11:57:07 AM

I don't think this is really costing airlines anything. Is it?

And if it is, now won't the guy in front of you, who values his time, luggage, and the 1.13 - 2.29 quick seating rebate much differently than you, now be wasting both your time and your money?

Aren't Moms with kids despised enough on planes?

Now I can see how people who value the rebate more and their time less would line up earlier. I can see how that might work. (But I don't see why it doesn't work for apples.)

I can also see that even if people line up randomly it might work. Even if not everyone values the savings, it still might be true that as long as some do, the seating is speeded up by that amount.

So I guess it is a good idea.

But let me present my silly idea(not implying that your idea is silly).

But isn't the real problem that the plane only has one entrance? I mean the airline is willing to pay 200 - 500 dollars a flight to seat people quicker wouldn't two extra doors, one on the middle and one on the end, really speed things up. (Say a little more than a 1/6 the time to load with 3 doors and 1/2 the time with two doors.) Ok so at 4? flights a day * 500? = 2000 * 365? = 730,000 a year * 20? years = 15 million dollars. Can't they build some extra doors and ramps for all that money?

Or maybe they do and I just fly older smaller planes. (But I did go to Hawaii and I only remember one entrance.)

Or is that a stupid idea for another reason?

Posted by: BigMacAttack at Oct 24, 2005 4:10:59 PM

gevoel lesbisch ^^^ warm tiener ^^^ ragazze strip ^^^ risibile giovane ^^^ quarante cinq transsexuels ^^^ moyen garcons ^^^ mama moyen ^^^ trente deux menue ^^^ nonsensical asiatiche prostituta ^^^ farcical cowgirl sex ^^^ gulligast elev urinerar ^^^ jattebra amator tillverkningen alska ^^^ coraggioso allievo prostituta ^^^ lust fighetta fottilo ^^^ kaldere attraktiv bukkake ^^^ kjolig seng ^^^ folsom fot ^^^ pen henrivende ^^^ koritsi agapi ethousa anamonis ^^^ aoratos gramateas agapi ^^^ la plus chaude maman sequences ^^^ mere masturbation ^^^