Government will require airlines to offer “complete picture” of ground delays

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of posts about the Transportation Department’s sweeping new airline passenger protection rules. Here’s the first one. Please take a moment to comment on these proposed rules at The future of air travel depends on it.

Elliott Advocacy is underwritten by Travel Insured International -- Travel Insured International is a leading travel insurance provider. For over 25 years, their goal has been to help each individual travel confidently. Some of the major travel insurance benefits provided by in their plans include Trip Cancellation, Trip Interruption, Accident and Sickness Medical Expense, and Baggage and Personal Effects coverage. Plans also include other non-insurance assistance services. In 2015, Travel Insured was acquired by Crum & Forster, whose parent company is Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The financial strength and core values of the companies give Travel Insured the best position in the market to continue its commitment of helping individuals protect their travel plans. Travel Relaxed…Travel Secure…When you have Travel Insured.

Attention, airlines: The government wants to know more about your tarmac delays.

Actually, it wants to know everything.

This week’s massive Transportation Department rulemaking contains a provision that would require airlines that must adopt tarmac-delay contingency plans to also file delay data with the department. If it’s passed, the result could be an insight into tarmac delays unlike any we’ve ever had.

In yesterday’s post on the new contingency plan requirements, I mentioned that tarmac delays were rare. The regulatory analysis (PDF) sheds further light on those numbers.

As you can see, it’s a very small fraction of the flights that are experiencing these big delays. But what do we not know about the tarmac delays that we need to know?

We have narrowed the data fields we propose to be reported to those we believe are necessary for us to extract necessary tarmac delay information. In addition, we propose to require these tarmac delay data to be reported each month only with respect to tarmac delays of 3 hours or more.


(1) Carrier code
(2) Flight number
(3) Departure airport (three letter vode)
(4) Arrival airport (three letter code)
(5) Date of flight operation (year/month/day)
(6) Gate departure time (actual) in local time
(7) Gate arrival time (actual) in local time
(8) Wheels-off time (actual) in local time
(9) Wheels-on time (actual) in local time
(10) Aircraft tail number
(11) Total ground time away from gate for all gate return/fly return at origin airports including cancelled flights
(12) Longest time away from gate for gate return or canceled flight
(13) Three letter code of airport where diverted flight
(14) Wheels-on time at diverted airport
(15) Total time away from gate at diverted airport
(16) Longest time away from gate at diverted airport
(17) Wheels-off time at diverted airport

DOT believes more data is the key to solving the tarmac delay problem.

While a single incident of tarmac delay may be attributed to one or more causes, such as air traffic congestion, weather related delays, mechanical problems, and/or flight dispatching logistic failures, we believe that an initial and essential step toward finding solutions for the tarmac delay problem, whether by government regulations and/or through voluntary actions by the airlines, and monitoring the effect on consumers of lengthy tarmac delays, is to obtain more complete data on these incidents.

The Econometica analysis agrees that having this data would be helpful.

[T]he Department does not collect information on the number and characteristics of tarmac delays associated with domestic flights operated by non-reporting U.S. carriers and with international flights operated by either U.S. or foreign carriers. Information about these delays would improve the Department‘s ability to understand the extent and causes of lengthy tarmac delays and provide the basis for assessing whether carriers are complying with current and proposed requirements for tarmac contingency plans.

Other than the expense of reporting the data, which DOT has already factored into this rulemaking, can you think of any reason why airlines would not want to report tarmac delay data?

If, indeed tarmac delays are rare, then they wouldn’t have a problem sharing this information with the government. It’s hard to imagine any airline objecting to this proposed requirement.

The benefits to air travelers would be measurable. With more data about these delays, we would be a step closer to preventing them. And if not, then at least helping us avoid the flights that are prone to lengthy ground delays.

The Rulemaking Series

I’ve written this series of posts in order to help you understand the Transportation Department’s proposed rules and offer the most informed feedback during its commenting period. Please take a moment to read them and then tell the government what you think at

Part 1: New tarmac delay contingency plans — what’s in it for you?

Part 2: Government will require airlines to offer “complete picture” of ground delays

Part 3: New rules would require airlines to meet “minimum” customer service standards

Part 4: Government to airlines: Put it in the contract!

Part 5: New requirements would force international airlines to monitor and respond to passenger complaints

Part 6: Everything you need to know about the new denied boarding compensation rules

Part 7: The truth about the government’s new “full fare” disclosure rule

Part 8: Transportation Department wants airlines to reveal all fees and an airfare — or two

Part 9: New rule: No more price increases after you buy a ticket

Part 10: Airlines must “promptly” notify passengers of flight delays under proposed rule

Part 11: No more lawsuit limits for passengers under proposed government rules

Part 12: The hard facts about the peanuts-on-a-plane rule everyone’s talking about

If you have any feedback on this series, please send me an email. And thanks for reading.

(Photo: Michael NW Lens/Flickr Creative Commons)