[HN Gopher] Southwest cancels 5,400 flights in less than 48 hours ___________________________________________________________________ Southwest cancels 5,400 flights in less than 48 hours Author : edward Score : 371 points Date : 2022-12-27 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.npr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org) | boomboomsubban wrote: | There was a news story a few months ago about some airlines | changing the way their crew software works to stop a third party | app employees were using to better track their hours Was | Southwest one of those airlines? | makestuff wrote: | Looks like it was American | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33233975 | dang wrote: | Recent and related: | | _Massive Southwest Airlines disruption leaves customers | stranded_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34145286 - Dec | 2022 (102 comments) | paultopia wrote: | So, like, what do we think... I have a flight on Jan 3. Book a | different airline now or pray they've gotten their heads out of | their asses by then? | elijaht wrote: | I would hedge with a refundable ticket to a different airline. | If Southwest is still having issues you might be able to get | the other ticket comped to some degree and still have a flight, | if they aren't having issues you can refund the other fare | paultopia wrote: | Ooh, good idea. Thank you. | DrWumbo wrote: | [flagged] | dang wrote: | Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's | not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | josephcsible wrote: | Because trains don't need scheduling software or crews? | ciphol wrote: | Trains have major weather issues much less frequently than | planes. | [deleted] | milkytron wrote: | They do. But at least there would be another option for | traveling. | zbentley wrote: | In addition to the advantages of trains over flights | mentioned by some of the other commenters, trains also: | | - Require less specialized crew training, and don't require | as many crew members to be equivalently specialized (though | you'd be surprised at the depth of training that's still | required to crew an Amtrak). | | - Can stop, and stop at offloading/transfer points, more | easily than planes. In the event of issues this further | increases flexibility of the system. | | - Have considerably more built-in redundancy than planes, and | _some_ built-in swap-ability of components during a trip by | removing or replacing cars. I say "some" in italics because | I've recently been ... er, very directly acquainted with how | critical a single pantograph failure can be to an entire rail | line. | | - _Might_ , if implemented via state-operated rail or state- | sponsored monopoly, offer the ability to replace, deploy, or | reroute entire trains in the event of unexpected | capacity/mechanical issues. This advantage is a bit of a | wash, though, in that we'd probably have more redundancy in | air travel if there were fewer larger carriers (this isn't | guaranteed and trades off with other issues, but | redundancy/flexibility is an advantage of consolidation). | | - Are mechanically simpler than planes, and thus require less | overhead before being deployed and have fewer "no-go" | inspection conditions that can introduce unexpected | unavailability. | overtonwhy wrote: | High speed rail infrastructure would be new and modern. | sokoloff wrote: | One of the problems with SWA's case is that cabin crews can | work a longer duty day than flight crews and airplanes can't | leave on passenger service without a full complement of both, | so the airplane scheduling problem might be more complex. | lostinroutine wrote: | I'm guessing the GP means that there will hopefully be an | increased interest for alternatives to planes that one can | take when there are air travel crises like this. | samename wrote: | Doubt the airline lobby that controls Congress will allow | anything like that to pass. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Same thing happened on July 20, 2016: | | https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-companies/2016/08/... | | at the time, then-CEO now-chairman Gary Kelly said: | | > "What's unique is the partial failure, it's never happened," he | said. "This isn't a drill you can run." | | https://web.archive.org/web/20161112192103/http://www.dallas... | | Delta had a similar outage due to a datacenter fire, grounding | all domestic flights. Southwest was uniquely slow in taking days | to start up again. And if the way my American Airlines ticket | switched my birthdate to January 1st, 2000 is any indication, | many airlines still need to modernize. | photochemsyn wrote: | Modernization of equipment, hiring more pilots and other | employees, investing in updating the code base - how can that | be done? It's far more important to keep the stock price high | by whatever means necessary, such as using government bailouts | to buy back shares. | | Investment capitalism is really a garbage system when it comes | to building and maintaining basic infrasctructure like | transportation, electricity grids, roads and so on. China has | demonstrated that convincingly over the past two decades, | hasn't it? | pksebben wrote: | "this isn't a drill you can run". And yet, Netflix has chaos | Kong do it with regularity. | | The difference between what's true, what some people will buy, | and what you can get away with saying is gross, y'all. | Supermancho wrote: | > "this isn't a drill you can run". And yet, Netflix has | chaos Kong do it with regularity. | | Netflix and airlines are so different as to make this | comparison laughable. The cost of setup and consequence of | problems actually being found (ie Federal Regulations) that | are not addressable (it's not like SWA didn't know about some | of the eventualities), easily outclasses the need for testing | every combination of situations. Kong doesn't run anything | that has to do with weather turning jet fuel into sludge or | 12x pre-staffing in case of massive computer failures along | with assessing the possible legal consequences from each | locale. The hubris of pretending that physical services on a | national scale, is as deterministic as a complex automated | system, is unsurprising from a certain crowd, I guess. | Chris2048 wrote: | > Delta had a similar outage due to a datacenter fire | | They only have one geo-located data-centre? | vrc wrote: | Google runs Disaster Recovery Training annually (DiRT) where | security teams are tasked with simulating these "black swan" | events. Seems like this practice needs to expand to more | industries. | landemva wrote: | This does not need Google deep pockets. It needs the | motivation and some funding. SWA does not care. | | Pull the backup tapes, hand those to DR team, provide bare | metal, and start the stopwatch. I participated in this in | 1990s across the Mississippi. | paganel wrote: | Google is also a trillion dollar company, as other have | pointed out Soutwest is a low-cost carrier which most | probably doesn't have the luxury of hiring FAANG-level | engineers on 500k yearly comp in order to best simulate | "black swan" events. | [deleted] | 0xBDB wrote: | They don't seem to pay competitively with banks, let alone | FAANGs, though the benefits and culture are (or were) | reputedly fantastic. | | Source: Am a local who's been headhunted by them a few | times but never got beyond the initial discussion with the | headhunter for this reason. | makestuff wrote: | This is probably the best argument for AWS/GCP/Azure even | though it is becoming more and more obvious you don't | really save that much money. | | If you have a black swan event like this and you listened | to your solutions architect you will have a disaster | recovery plan or even better a multi region setup. Worst | case you have highly paid support engineers at the cloud | providers who will do everything they can to get you back | online. | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote: | This does not seem like a hardware failure scenario where | the cloud has anything to offer. More like their | intricate software/database systems became out of sync | with reality and disentangling the mess is a highly | manual process. | makestuff wrote: | In this case no, but I was more referring to the 2016 | delta ground stop that was due to their datacenter | burning to the ground. | therealjumbo wrote: | I remember reading about the Delta incident a ways back, | here they claim it cost them ~$150 million. https://www.d | atacenterknowledge.com/archives/2016/09/08/delt... | | That's not the article I hoped to find however. I seem to | remember there was another article where they hired a | investigator/consultant to figure out the price to | migrate to the cloud and ensure "this never happens | again." | | My recollection of that was: their scheduling/ops team is | also in the same city (Atlanta GA) as this datacenter, | and that teams work was brought to a halt by the | datacenter outage. The investigator concluded that Delta | would need redundant copies of the ops team or the whole | effort of moving the software to the cloud would just be | at risk to something happening to the human team all in | the same city. That would obviously cost to much money, | so Delta decided to skip it. | namdnay wrote: | Regarding the employees, keep in mind that neither SWA (nor | any other airline for that matter) have big software | engineering departments. It's all outsourced to either | generalist bodyshops for custom/peripheral systems (IBM, | Accenture) or specialist shops for core (Amadeus, SABRE) | adamsb6 wrote: | At Facebook we would simulate an entire datacenter | disappearing. | | When we first started doing it the datacenter would be chosen | months in advance so that teams would have plenty of time to | ensure their services can run without that specific | datacenter. | | When I left this year, the datacenter would be randomly | chosen on the same day it would be cut off. | chasd00 wrote: | That's pretty cool and ideal practice for a software firm | but in one of the reddit threads they're talking about mass | quits/refusal to work of ground crew at Denver because of | the weather. I wonder how you could ever prepare for that? | Keep a backup, airport scoped, ground crew in the waiting | room?? | | You can't really do hot spares for people without time to | gear/train up and the weather event is so widespread I | doubt there's enough spare SWA human capacity across the | whole nation even if you had C130s on standby everywhere | ready to take workers where they're needed most. From a | national security perspective, situations like this is why | the Marines exist right? Ensure a rapid response while the | rest of the machine gets moving. I feel bad for everyone | involved, those affected and those trying to figure out a | solution. | landemva wrote: | > I wonder how you could ever prepare for that? | | Management could consider how pay and performance | programs can help ensure business continuity. | | HR and MBA xls wizards don't understand how to manage for | business longevity. | manigandham wrote: | Do you really think the MBA wizards can't figure out some | basic pay issues? | | It seems you're discounting just how complex HR can be, | especially in the face of exigent circumstances. No | amount of bonuses will immediately staff up an entire | terminal in the face of a massive snowstorm. | lotsofpulp wrote: | While they may be able to figure it out, optimizing pay | to quality of life at work ratios to ensure long term | employee retention and loyalty has certainly not been a | priority. | dpkirchner wrote: | Pay might not really be enough. Maybe management could | try to find folks to babysit kids/take care of parents | trapped at home, freeing up workers to come fly. They'll | certainly fail, but at least they'll understand the | plight of their workers. | drdec wrote: | It doesn't seem that farfetched for an airline to run a | drill where a given airport is assumed inoperable to see | how the system reacts. The expectation shouldn't be the | same as the data center failure but you can learn what | you aren't doing well enough. | [deleted] | tomjakubowski wrote: | Training for these scenarios may help with responding to true | black swan events, like Rick Rescorla's WTC evacuation drills | ahead of 9/11. But, nitpicking, if you've predicted something | will happen, by way of simulating it, it's not a black swan | when it does. | adrr wrote: | There are cost considerations. Business continuity costs | money. Finance firms have significant capital and income to | have empty but built out building around around airports | for business continuity. Which doesn't even make sense | since they can work from home as proven with covid. | Airlines can't work from home. | barrenko wrote: | Personally one of the basic tenets of my adulthood is | realizing how many companies are a _hair_ away from a similar | scenario (differing in magnitude from an airline ofc). | bookofjoe wrote: | EMP FTW | bobkazamakis wrote: | >Seems like this practice needs to expand to more industries. | | I think you've mistaken this for something immediately | increases quarterly gains with no regard to long-term | strategy. | 23B1 wrote: | What's most annoying is that there's plenty of employees on | the front line who not only care about testing for this | sort of thing, but it actually interests them, they're | motivated by it, and they understand the dire reality of | what happens - to them, primarily - if the company isn't | prepared to handle it. | | And you can guess what their managers' response typically | is: "We need to focus on OKRs and QBRs and KPIs right | now... maybe next quarter" | | I'm fully convinced that achieving 'manager status' is | directly correlated to cowardice. Companies need top-down | decision-making, but those decision-makers need to spend | more time on the front line. | giantrobot wrote: | > Companies need top-down decision-making, but those | decision-makers need to spend more time on the front | line. | | This is not rewarded so it doesn't happen. Managers are | rewarded for _line goes up_ so they only focus on _line | goes up_. If line ever doesn 't go up it costs them money | (advancement, compensation) even if there's little they | could have done to make line go up. | Analemma_ wrote: | In that case the government should smash Southwest with a | billion dollar fine so the cost of not doing this drilling | exceeds the cost of doing it. | hallway_monitor wrote: | Asking the government to step in for additional | regulation is rarely helpful. For this type of failure, | the free market will determine whether processes and | tools improve, or whether the status quo is good enough. | heavenlyblue wrote: | Free market? | ceejayoz wrote: | Regulation sometimes helps remind the free market that | fuckups like this can come with real human costs. | astrange wrote: | What's an airline got to do with the free market? They're | a extremely highly regulated business. | dzhiurgis wrote: | Until regulation steps in. | kevinmchugh wrote: | My wife and I spent a few hours this morning dealing with | the cancellation of our return flight. Southwest has long | been preferable for me in many cases, including my most | flown route. Between the headache of this outage and the | apparently dismal state of their operations there's a | strong chance I never fly with them again. | jdeibele wrote: | Our family was in San Jose last week when our Southwest | flight was cancelled. | | It used to be that my first priority would be to go into | the terminal and try to talk to somebody. I figured they | were the experts. From what I've read, the staff use an | antiquated system that takes you from one airport to | another, then they can try to get you from that city to | where you want to go. That's why there's so much tapping | of keys and why it takes so long. | | It's better to present them with a route that you've | found on Google Flights or similar. The Southwest first | flight out was supposed to be yesterday evening, the day | after Christmas. In our case, the only thing we could | find before Christmas was getting us from SJC to Seattle | via Phoenix on Alaska. We ended up renting a car and | driving home to Portland. Things got bad around Eugene - | I stopped counting after 40 wrecked cars and semis - and | got worse as you got closer to Portland. | astrange wrote: | Airlines don't have quarterly gains. They regularly go | bankrupt and get picked up again, because the country needs | airlines and because they have large union contracts. | | See any gains here? | | https://www.google.com/finance/quote/LUV:NYSE?window=5Y | splistud wrote: | [dead] | Scarblac wrote: | Google is made of money, and the reason they are is not | because of DiRT. Other industries can't afford the same | things that Google can while continuing to be a business. | fragmede wrote: | After canceling 5,400 flights, I can't see how Southwest | can afford _not_ to test. Even if they only made $1000 off | each flight, that 's still $5 million they just lost. | Scarblac wrote: | They probably would not have made it this far if they | tested for every possible scenario, their margins are | razor thin. | | Anyway, doesn't even the best testing only catch 40% of | bugs or thereabouts? It's not a silver bullet. | rumdonut wrote: | I figure most companies are too small for that to be | budgeted. Though, it's possibly a good selling point for | cloud if it's capable of it. | JustLurking2022 wrote: | Cloud doesn't solve badly designed processes or poorly | written software, which seem to be at play with Southwest. | Yes, it can help provide more stable infrastructure and | there are some (but by no means all) black swan events that | can be mitigated simply by throwing more kit at the problem | during a surge but it's no silver bullet. | thriftwy wrote: | Yandex used to run datacenter loss training every week, where | they will nullroute one DC and see what breaks all while | handling live taffic. | babyshake wrote: | > "This isn't a drill you can run." | | When characterized as something that can't be done instead of | something they don't know how to do, you know exactly where | they are on the Dunning-Kruger curve. | splonk wrote: | > many airlines still need to modernize. | | Most of the travel industry runs on old software that would | horrify a lot of people here, especially those who've never | worked for a large, 30+ year old company. When I used to | interview a lot of people I made it a point to mention some of | the more "interesting" aspects so they'd know what they were | getting into. | | One example: ever tried to book a flight a year in advance? On | a lot (almost all?) of systems you can't, because the | underlying date format is "DEC27". | | Edit to address a couple comments: logistics are hard and there | are plenty of reasons why airlines wouldn't want to support | booking that far out. However, the reason you can book a flight | 330 days from now but not 360 days from now is almost certainly | due to the date format. (I believe the windows used are less | than 365 days because it's helpful to be able to have dates in | the recent past. I remember seeing documentation for 360, but | AA and United seem to be in the 330-340 range on their | websites). | xiphias2 wrote: | ,, Most of the travel industry runs on old software that | would horrify a lot of people here'' | | If you can see how it works, it horrifies me even more as a | traveller, as from outside it just doesn't work a lot of the | time. | | Also if you just look at the video, we all know how bad these | systems are, but are not able to do anything (starting | anything new in the airline industry has too much cost). | grepfru_it wrote: | Likely cannot book that far not because of the underlying | date format, but because of jet-a fuel prices which | fluctuate. Airlines typically hedge their near term purchases | with longer-term futures | [deleted] | np- wrote: | To be fair, I think allowing flights a year in advance is | probably far more complicated than just updating the | underlying date format. Even if they were able to solve that | problem, airlines probably can't easily operationally plan | that far ahead due to so many moving parts, i.e. committing | to routes and schedules, planning for staffing that far ahead | of time, ever changing government restrictions, fuel price | fluctuations, inflation, geopolitical realities, staffing, | etc. I mean, imagine if they did, and something like COVID | comes along again, it would cause far, far more disruption if | they had booked out the next few years in advance (we had no | idea how long COVID restrictions would last while we were in | the heat of it, it's only clearer now in retrospect). | | Also speaking as a software engineer myself, it's almost | never just a software fix that will magically solve everybody | else's problems, that always ends up being just wishful | thinking | CPLX wrote: | Airlines historically have not set their schedules more than | a year in advance and it's not clear they want to. | Frost1x wrote: | While this is humorous in that there are limiting assumptions | like this baked into the system, I also have to wonder, who | needs or even wants to book a flight a year in advance? I | dread planning out a flight 4 months in advance and dealing | with the almost inevitable cascade of conflicts this | introduces of juggling and rescheduling things to make things | align correctly. One year makes me cringe. | LarryMullins wrote: | My family plans the yearly family get-together at the | yearly family get-together. A year in advance. Except | sometimes due to scheduling deconfliction, it's actually 10 | or 11 months in advance.. or 13 or 14 months in advance. | The exact date floats and sometimes we are planning trips | more than a year in advance. | Induane wrote: | Me for: | | - Annual conferences or conferences that occur every-other | year - Planning family reunions because you need that kind | of cat-herding lead time when you have 9 uncles/aunts on | just ONE side of the family - Periods where I have some | spare cash I'd like to lock in a getaway with before I | spend it or something unexpected like the invasion of the | Ukraine drives up fuel costs and overall prices... or a | global pandemic hits - would be sweet if I could have | rebooked some of my trips for for 1-2 years out when the | pandemic hit - Travel for future medical stuff; at one | point for 2-3 years I was taking my mom to the Cleveland | Clinic every 4 months for periodic checks and it would have | been super nice to be able to just book that stuff way in | advance and have it all taken care of | | Etc | | etc | | etc | | I'd bet quite a few people would appreciate that ability | dendrite9 wrote: | There are events that I can see purchasing flights well in | advance for. I used to a go to a conference that was held | every other year at the same time, it would have been easy | to buy tickets more than a year in advance for that without | much concern. Eclipses, certain sporting events, or | reservations for activities with a wait list of more than a | year could qualify as well. Despite that I am like you and | rarely have tickets far in advance of a trip. | steveklabnik wrote: | I could see it for major holidays. I spent too much money | to fly home this year because I am bad at scheduling. I | would consider booking next year's flight during this | year's trip just so I know it's knocked out and I don't | have to worry about it. | masklinn wrote: | > I also have to wonder, who needs or even wants to book a | flight a year in advance? | | Major holiday, destination wedding, event known long in | advance (e.g. Grandma's 80s does not come as a surprise). | kenneth wrote: | As a fun side thing, I am also a travel agent with access to | some of these internal systems on the booking side. The | technology is incredibly antiquated. Most of the US runs on a | system called SABRE, which is basically a MS-DOS system with | a text command line interface and its own language. It's all | ASCII text based (and all in uppercase). It's straight out of | the 80s. Travel agents need to buy special "errors" insurance | to cover any losses caused by fucking it up (a typo could | accidentally cancel a ticket and cause the client thousands | in losses rebooking it). | thebradbain wrote: | They actually have a GUI interface over it now with the | ability for power/legacy users to drop into the raw shell, | if they wish. From feedback, many of the older agents | actually prefer the command line, because it's muscle | memory and an experienced agent can perform routine tasks | that would take multiple screens in the UI with one hand in | the way we're comfortable with our text editors. | | Granted, the rollout across airlines is probably glacial | | Source: I used to work there | yardie wrote: | I don't blame them. Modern UX has a huge problem with | something as simple as date pickers. Preferring you | scroll through 90+ items when a simple textbox would | suffice. | tintor wrote: | What are the reasons preventing flight booking software | modernization? | nikanj wrote: | 30 years of cumulative complexity in the existing stack, | with endless edge-cases and special exceptions | sjm-lbm wrote: | .. and, as we're learning, extremely high penalties if | one of those edge cases happens to cause a cascading | failure. | thebradbain wrote: | GDS -- there's really only 3 centralized stores of real- | time flight/hotel/booking information in the entire world | (Sabre/SABRE, Amadeus, and Travelport). Almost every | American airline uses Sabre (American Airlines is an | interesting case in that it does not _technically_ in a | legal sense, but actually it spun off and sold Sabre in | 2000, so a lot of their core systems are forks of each | other) | | Complexity -- Fundamentally you're looking at a logistics | software, except unlike packages you're dealing with | people who aside from expected destinations have travel | lengths and time-in-air calculated down to the minute. | Also unlike a package, a surprise multi-day trip, | unexpected multi-leg journey, one day delay is not | something passengers (and crew members) will accept or be | at all ok with. And if any one thing goes wrong there's | going to be cascading failures down the line-- so much | that it may break your company's entire operating | workflow (e.g. Southwest) entirely, and no software can | overcome that kind of organizational gap. | | Airlines - There's not many commercial passenger airlines | left in the US, especially that fly nationwide. Good luck | trying to convince one of these giant behemoths to move | to a non-battle-tested system for core operations, | especially when decades-old industry software and | practices around that software exist. | | Entrenched - Sabre is entrenched in airlines around the | world. They don't just provide the booking services, they | do the flight tracking, the ticket handling, the | upgrading, the in-flight upgrades, missed connection | handling, the flight scheduling algorithms, the pricing | algorithms, the pilot and flight attendant time tracking, | ground crew management, even the terminal software at | each gate. To replace SABRE, you would physically need to | rip out and then replace software around the world. And | because agents don't work from an office usually, but at | the airport, you're going to need to conduct trainings | and provide support around the entire service area, which | for the largest airlines is the entire world | | Scale -- A lot of Sabre's revenue comes from passengers | boarded. It depends on the airline, but I believe the | average is that each airline pays 10cents/customer | boarded with their software (though with increases in | passenger volume each year, it may be less now). Because | Sabre is so prevalent, and so many flights use them, they | can afford such a price. A company servicing just one | regional passenger airline would absolutely not be able | to compete on price, at least starting out | | Also-- Sabre's software itself is actually reliable! As a | corporation it is slow clunky and bureaucratic, but the | actual functionality it provides is stable, battle- | tested, can handle any travel edge case you can think of, | and fast and efficient for those who know how to use it, | while also good enough at day to day operations that it | doesn't take too much time to train new agents on how to | use it for routine tasks. | coldcode wrote: | SABRE is ancient technology, but very reliable and at the | same time extremely inflexible. Last time I saw it | upclose in the early 2000's much of the core was still | coded in IBM assembler, although over the decades more | pieces were slowly being modernized so I have no idea | where it is now. Sabre is a horrifically un- imaginative | company where projects are measured in years and not much | every changes. | | I think though Southwest's issues are more on their side. | | Yeah building a new GDS today is an exercise in insanity, | it's a huge complexity nightmare and switching probably | impossible. I always wondered if AI could eventually | improve things, but the existing GDSs are unlikely to | care much to try. It's basically a (tri)monopoly you can | never break. | [deleted] | mastax wrote: | Big software projects inevitably become expensive | boondoggles that get everyone fired so nobody wants to do | them until they're absolutely necessary. | cmehdy wrote: | The typical answer for old behemoths: it was built | because it was necessary to build it, and it won't change | until a change is necessary too. Wanting that change is | not enough, it has to become an almost mechanical | constraint, and usually the constraint gets noticed when | it far outweighs the costs (and not just a little). Or is | a noticeable threat to the system's existence. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | I remember using some version of SABRE through CompuServe | back in the day. All command line stuff over a dial-up | modem, but it was novel and cool to be able to book your | own flights with it. It would be very annoying to still be | stuck on that interface, though. | rippercushions wrote: | SABRE dates from 1960 and is by some reckonings _the_ very | first piece of commercial (non-military, non-academic) | software in the world. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_(travel_reservation_sys | t... | bombcar wrote: | 1/1/2000 sounds like a default value when it lost the data or | never had it. Even more obvious would be if it threw you to | 1/1/70. | loeg wrote: | It's definitely some default (or "null" in a DB) value and | that is exactly what OP is insinuating. | monocasa wrote: | Particularly on mainframe systems like airline reservation | systems tend to run on where the Y2k fix in a lot of cases | for Cobol was to simply contextually know that certain fields | couldn't have been created before 2000, so '00' BCD is simply | year 2000. | Kon-Peki wrote: | On our database systems, we have some date fields for which | the default value should never, ever be used and if it is, | there is a big problem. All of those dates are set to the | dates of well-known natural disasters that happened in the | 1800s or earlier. | | The thought was that it needs to be something that isn't | believable to a non-technical user seeing it on their | computer screen. It turns out that this is not necessarily | useful. I listened to a guy talking about some issues with a | record; he says "1871? What's up with that?" And then just | moved on as if "well it came out of the computer, must be | right" or something. | | I think that databases need to have the concept of NaN for | dates and time stamps, except that this should be | configurable to something like a poop emoji or something like | !?. It has to be something where your grandma would look at | it and confidently say "your computer is broken" | SoftTalker wrote: | Your database should not allow invalid values to exist. | That is what check contstraints, foreign keys, NOT NULL | constraints, etc. are for. | rini17 wrote: | If you're such a DBA, the rest of an enterprise will | quickly route around you. | CydeWeys wrote: | > I think that databases need to have the concept of NaN | for dates and time stamps, except that this should be | configurable to something like a poop emoji or something | like !? | | How about just NULL? | Kon-Peki wrote: | Making database columns nullable isn't a free ride. | | _In some situations_ , you are trading one known point | of failure for a million unknown ones. Among other | problems :) | Gwypaas wrote: | "The server returned an unexpected error." | | Now GLHF! | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _" What's unique is the partial failure, it's never | happened," he said. "This isn't a drill you can run."_ | | The unspoken part you have to hear there is "... within the | economic model of the airline business". | | Business continuity gets exponentially more expensive as you | chase the blackest of swans: the sheer volume of plan | development and maintenance, developing exercises, table-top | vs. walkthrough vs. simulation, assumptions about how many | different uncorrelated failures you're prepared for deal with | at once etc. | | I've no doubt you could run an airline to be as resilient as | (say) USAF Air Mobility Command, but no-one could afford the | tickets. | Frost1x wrote: | What's ironic here is that groups like USAF are constantly | pressured to adopt private industry models to be more | "economically efficient" and completely ignoring that | resiliency is a requirement baked into the high cost. I | understand why both take the approaches they do but it seems | everyone holds private industry barely running with no | resiliency optimizations above all else, which don't make | sense in all contexts. Corner cutting is fine in many | contexts, especially when you know the side effects of their | failures which may be quite insignificant. | inetknght wrote: | > _" What's unique is the partial failure, it's never | happened," he said. "This isn't a drill you can run."_ | | As someone who writes some very thorough unit tests... and also | have had to have _mandatory training_... I find "this isn't a | drill you can run" to be _very_ wrong. | SoftTalker wrote: | Southwest is a "discount" airline. They do many things to | economize, i.e. no assigned seats, they only fly 737s so they | don't need to certify pilots or mechanics on any other types, | you can only book with them and not with Expedia etc. | | It would not surprise me that their back-office operations | are likewise economized and some things are just not done | because "they can never happen." | thomasjudge wrote: | Just as a note: they are about to issue a $458M dividend. | They plan to spend $4-4.5B in 2023 on planes. How much are | they spending on system modernization? | namdnay wrote: | > How much are they spending on system modernization | | A fortune, they only just finished an 8-year migration to | Amadeus | LarryMullins wrote: | > _Southwest is a "discount" airline._ | | They're also the "friendly airline", they easily have the | most personable and friendly staff. I don't know what they | do different, but Southwest employees treat me human and | all the rest generally treat me like human trash. It's got | to be a company culture thing, maybe connected to Southwest | not having a first-class section. | | Usually I fly with Southwest whenever possible without | thinking twice about it, but this outage and the outage | last year are forcing me to reconsider. Better to deal with | rude people than to have my flight delayed.. | dkarl wrote: | Yep, the other airlines are in the business of selling | "class" and "status," and it's part of their product | differentiation strategy to treat you according to how | much you pay. | AlotOfReading wrote: | All airlines economize. An airline that doesn't is a | bankrupt airline because typical industry margins on flight | are razor thin. | | Southwest isn't a particularly budget airline compared to | modern budget carriers like spirit and ryanair that haven't | copied the open boarding policy. I suspect the opportunity | to upsell seats / luggage and have distinct classes | outweighs the turnaround time costs of assigned seating. | mason55 wrote: | > _It would not surprise me that their back-office | operations are likewise economized and some things are just | not done because "they can never happen."_ | | Meh, it doesn't even have to be "never". It just has to be | cost multiplied by frequency is less than the cost to | prepare. | | If they lose $100m every five years due to a system | failure, and it would cost $30m/year to plan for those | failures, they it's just cheaper to let it happen. | | And I don't mean this in a judgmental, Fight Club-car | recall speech kind of way. It's just business reality. At | some point every business has to decide that the cost of | planning for something is higher than the cost of letting | it happen. | e_y_ wrote: | What's the value of the reputation risk of a major, very | high profile failure? | | Sometimes businesses end up on the wrong side of that | bet. They see only the costs but not the benefits of | preparedness (by the time it fails, there will probably | be a different CEO in charge) and make a bad call. | mason55 wrote: | Of course, no argument there. Ideally when you make that | kind of decision you take reputational risk into account, | as well as, like, is this an existential risk? | | The airline industry feels like one where each year it's | a different carrier who has some catastrophic scheduling | failure. Today, everyone says they're never flying | Southwest again. But if you fly semi-regularly then it | won't take very long before you don't have any airlines | left to fly on. | | For people who weren't affected, I doubt very many are | even going to remember this. Personally, I remember that | this kind of thing has happened recently with other | carriers but I couldn't even tell you who. | | And people who were affected can mostly be bought off if | you need to. Some vouchers & hotel reimbursement and it's | just the cost of doing business. | | Plus, the airline industry has proven over and over that | people are willing to put up with a lot when you have the | cheapest prices. | | It's different from an industry that's built on | reputation and trust. Like, a password manager, the only | real thing you're selling is your reputation. Losing | trust is a real existential threat. Security costs need | to be in the bucket of either "yes, we will do it" or | "it's so expensive that if we do it then we don't have a | business anyway, so we'll skip it and pray." | hattmall wrote: | Scheduling won't ruin an airlines reputation. Crashing | the planes is what ruins an airline. Southwest has only | ever had two passenger deaths and one of those was an | attempted hijacker beaten to death by other passengers. | khuey wrote: | Eh, to a first approximation the FAA won't let you crash | the planes. It's been 13 years since there was a fatal | plane crash on a US passenger airline. | burnte wrote: | "I find "this isn't a drill you can run" to be _very_ wrong" | | As a IT-VP/CIO, the statement of "there's no way to test it" | is not acceptable. | dstroot wrote: | Then you are senior enough to know what " then-CEO now- | chairman Gary Kelly" really meant was "I haven't funded our | technology team well enough to have resources to test a | scenario like this". | mason55 wrote: | Or "we decided that the cost to plan for this is so high | that it's not even worth testing. If it happens then | we're fucked anyway and we'll just eat it." | hattmall wrote: | You can drill the initial failure, but not really the | cascading events. In something as large as a global airline | you are dependant on 1000s of third parties actions and the | weather. No simulated drill is going to be sufficient or | realistic. The only way to really mitigate or plan for | something like this is multiple layers of segregation so | that events in one area have less or no impact on others. | Then you could drill total failure in various segments. | [deleted] | ninkendo wrote: | Testing reveals the presence of bugs, never their absence. | With hindsight you can always feel smugly superior in | saying "you should have tested for this", but there's an | infinitude of things you _might_ need to test, and if you | haven't encountered a failure you didn't test for, you're | probably just lucky. | justinator wrote: | I'm very certain Chaos Engineering is known in the airline | industry | ninkendo wrote: | It's funny that you use unit tests as an example of it being | possible to run drills for this kind of thing. Unit tests are | by their definition not the kind of thing that simulates this | kind of failure. Perhaps you have a false sense of security | about what you've really been testing? | 0x445442 wrote: | So in my attempts to get my family home I've discovered that | rental car company web sites are atrocious. | | The direct company sites (not Expedia for example) do not give | you the ability to search for vehicles at multiple locations | within a mileage radius. You are forced to enter a single | location for pickup. This is also true for drop off. | | From what I can tell, rental car companies are not setup to | easily service a one way rentals, which is what most people need | right now. I've managed to reserve a car for pickup in KC and | drop off in Phoenix for tomorrow. The quote for the two days, | over $1200. This isn't really a web site issue but it gives some | context. | | Here's the baffling bit. I make a reservation this morning at | Enterprise in a KC suburb and get back a confirmation number, | cool. Five minutes later I get a call back that they don't have | any cars available. I ask him why, because I got the confirmation | number. He says the website isn't accurate at the moment. WTF? So | when a car is rented and driven off the lot the database doesn't | update? Or worse, the local dealer data is not synced to | corporate in real time? | | This is a cascading mess. They don't even have availability in | Joplin, MO who's is 3 hours from KC. | bmitc wrote: | Doesn't it blow our minds that the U.S. is supposedly the most | advanced country in the world, and yet our transportation | systems are designed worse than seems imaginable. | | On rental cars, I know it's a meme, but my god it continually | surprises me how it seems the agents have to rewrite the | mainframe just to hand me keys for a pre-arranged reservation. | bradleyankrom wrote: | For whatever it's worth, I've used National extensively for | years (we have a corporate contract) for business and personal, | and have generally had positive experiences. The web site has | been clear when inventory didn't exist, haven't run into the | app-reality inconsistency problems. | cowmoo728 wrote: | Car rentals are a total consumer disaster and have always been | this way. It keeps being like this because generally you end up | with _a_ car and that 's all people need. Special shout out to | Sixt that promised me a volvo xc90 over the phone and gave me a | cadillac midsize crossover instead when I showed up. The | employee at the manhattan location told me they've never even | seen a Sixt XC90 at that location. | BMFX00 wrote: | Just to give you a possible cheat code. Despite them saying you | can't when booking... | | I've had great luck booking an enterprise rental car from an | airport (this is key), and on the booking saying returning to | the same airport. | | After receiving the car, calling corporate and requesting a | different city drop off. The only requirement being that it was | dropped off at another airport. | | Paid $75 a day for an SUV, from SF and dropped off in Bishop, | CA. Reno was the same cost, as well but Bishop made sense. Did | this a week ago. Worst case there's an additional cost but is | it going to be $1,000 more... no way. | giantrobot wrote: | Not that this helps but car rental places are like | trailer/truck rentals. A particular location will often just be | a franchise and own their own vehicles. They'll also handle | vehicles from other locations/corporate but they have their own | little fleet. They charge one-way rentals based on the | likelihood of that vehicle returning to them in some time frame | and/or them getting a replacement vehicle while the one-way is | rented. | | More generally they schedule based on their return schedules. | If they have a car scheduled to return at noon and you set your | pickup time to one, they assume they'll have that car and be | able to rent it to you. If I don't drop it off at noon they | can't assume I'll drop it off at 12:01 so they need to let you | know it won't be available (since they can't predict my | actions). | | This is all compounded by agents on the lot renting out cars | under the radar or booking agents doing some customer service | override. They are incentivized to rent cars, not rent to | specific people. For them it doesn't matter if _your_ car is | unavailable, it got rented out which made them money. | | Good luck getting a car and making your drive. | typest wrote: | I was also in STL when this happened. Had to drive 4 hours away | to Evansville, IN in order to get a rental car. Just showed up | here and they told me I was lucky to reserve it last night, | they're now turning away walk ups at the counter. | hrunt wrote: | > Here's the baffling bit. I make a reservation this morning at | Enterprise in a KC suburb and get back a confirmation number, | cool. Five minutes later I get a call back that they don't have | any cars available. I ask him why, because I got the | confirmation number. He says the website isn't accurate at the | moment. WTF? So when a car is rented and driven off the lot the | database doesn't update? Or worse, the local dealer data is not | synced to corporate in real time? | | Same thing happened to me. My wife even called the night before | and talked to someone (not at the airport, though) and | confirmed. The guy at the pickup had to tell 6 people at 6am | that they were only honoring reservations made at least three | days prior, and all of them had confirmed numbers. | | Likewise, no cars are available within a two hour drive. It | looks like the first few days of problems sucked up any | available inventory in the system. | chasd00 wrote: | I never thought the movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles was | a documentary. | hk1337 wrote: | They know how to take the reservation, they just don't know how | to _hold_ the reservation. | dsimmons wrote: | Great Seinfeld bit :) | SoftTalker wrote: | Cars are rented out with the assumption that prior renters will | return the cars on time. If that doesn't happen, you will be | told that they don't have a car for you. | | The reservation system probably overbooks to some extent | because a certain percentage of reserved cars are never picked | up. | | Many rental outlets are franchise operations. It may say | Enterprise or Budget on the sign but it's Joe's Car Rental LLC | running the place. They may be slow at updating rentals and | returns in the system. It's not all one homogenous company. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Enterprise is usually not a franchise: | | https://www.enterprise.com/en/global-franchise- | opportunities... | | > Please note that we do not franchise our brands in Canada, | the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, France | or Germany. | [deleted] | kylehotchkiss wrote: | I've found for one way rentals, going between two larger | airport locations is the best way to keep the price reasonable | (and probably pay some of the difference for Ubers) | leviathant wrote: | Car rental inventory is absurd, and renting a box truck is even | worse. I've learned over the years that a "reservation" is a | best case scenario. - nothing's real until money changes hands. | There's also a lot of weird nuance around renting at an airport | and renting at an in-town location. And even when you've turned | down all the needless upsells and paid for your car, you have | to be careful about further sleight of hand! | | Earlier this year, I reserved a mid-size vehicle for a few | days' drive for a business trip, and after they charged my | card, they told me they're bringing around a compact vehicle. I | probably should have let it go, the difference in price wasn't | that much (and was a work expense) but old habits die hard. | "That's not what I paid for - either you can refund me the | difference, or you can bring me a mid-size sedan." | | They said if I could wait 15 minutes, they'd bump me up from a | Hyundai Accent to a larger Toyota, but it wasn't until I sat in | the car that I learned that even as a new car, it was as bare- | bones as they make them. No CarPlay/Android Auto, the in-car | GPS was disabled, no cruise control - I'm sure it would have | had manual windows if that were an option. The Hyundai would | have been a better ride, I shouldn't have fussed. | | But yeah, U-Haul or Ryder or whatever, it's the stone ages | there. Years ago, I drove halfway across the state to pick up a | sixteen foot truck I'd reserved, and when I got there - "Yeah | we don't have a sixteen foot truck, I don't know why it let you | reserve that." A smaller truck wasn't an option for what we | were moving. I ended up having to call around and hit some | local place up. | hrunt wrote: | > Car rental inventory is absurd, and renting a box truck is | even worse. I've learned over the years that a "reservation" | is a best case scenario. - nothing's real until money changes | hands. | | As Seinfeld said, they're good at taking the reservation, but | not good at holding it. | jjulius wrote: | Penske is the winner there (edit: in my experience, YMMV). We | moved from CA to OR in spring 2021. Got a res through UHaul | for a box truck, and got a call 24 hours later basically | telling me that they were massively overbooked and wouldn't | be able to confirm a truck for me _until the morning we were | supposed to pack the truck up and leave_. There 's not a | snowball's chance in hell that I'm gonna plan for a move with | that level of uncertainty, lol. | | Called Penske, because I'd always had a good business | relationship with them via my job. I was told, "Oh, yeah, we | don't do that shit. If you book a truck that day, it's gonna | be here, guaranteed." | | Sure enough, Penske had it. We packed up the truck, I got on | the road, and about 45 minutes later I got a call from UHaul | telling me that I could pick up an available truck, but it | was three hours away. | | I laughed loudly and just hung up. | pc86 wrote: | I've probably rented box trucks a dozen times in my life | for various personal and professional endeavors, including | a stint of regular quarterly rentals for several years, and | two cross-country moves. At this point Penske gets my money | no matter what; I don't even look elsewhere. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | No CarPlay? Every Avis rental car I get seems to have it. | Which brand? | optymizer wrote: | I rented cars in Europe, Carribean, Israel and the US. Some | things I've learned: | | * In the US, Hertz with corporate discounts and status is | usually the cheapest and most convenient option. Walk to the | car, pick your car from the President's Circle, drive off. | Absolutely the best experience I've had with rentals. | | * Without status, it's a coin toss: Avis or Hertz, with Avis | generally having worse service across the board. | | * In Europe, Avis was the worst. In Israel I think it's a | franchise, it was all manual entries, long waiting lines. In | Portugal I had to wait in line for 1.5 hours to pick up the | car because I wasn't Preferred. Their Preferred booth was | empty the entire time. All I had to do was validate my | drivers license, and they still refused to accept me at | Preferred because they print the preferred customers in the | morning. Almost missed my flight. | | * Europcar in Israel - cheaper but I wasted an hour in line | to _return_ the car. | | * In Aruba (I think), Avis doesn't tell you they run shuttles | to the airport and you have to wait 30+ min for the shuttle | to come around and pick you up. | | * I rented 26' trucks from U-Haul twice. Both times went | well, though the first truck was very bouncy and the second | truck's engine light was on, but otherwise I got from A to B | with no issues. | | But this all pales in comparison to this car rental company | in Moldova (Eastern Europe) that took $100 to book an SUV a | month in advance, and then when I arrived they said "we don't | have it". The only car they had was $50/day more expensive | and instead of apologizing and giving me that car, despite | being more expensive, they told me that my only option was to | pay more to get this car. They were fixing the A/C outside | while I was trying to explain to them that it was a | ridiculous demand. A bunch of crooks. I walked away. Sixt was | a better experience there, and cheaper than Avis, though | 4rent.md is definitely the best option with great customer | service. | barrenko wrote: | There are some pretty cool threads on the subject of rental car | companies here on HN. | Anechoic wrote: | _From what I can tell, rental car companies are not setup to | easily service a one way rentals,_ | | Which isn't surprising because at some point, someone needs to | bring that car back to it's home base. | trollied wrote: | Indeed. Lots of them are franchises that own their own stock. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I thought none of the 3 US car rental brand holding | companies franchised. But it seems that Avis Budget and | Hertz do franchise. Enterprise does not. | | I wonder if that is why I seem to prefer Enterprise. Not | that I would touch Hertz with a 10ft pole anyway. | 0x445442 wrote: | And Alamo appears to just be a front company for | Enterprise. | lotsofpulp wrote: | That is why I wrote "3 US car rental brand holding | companies". They are all part of either Enterprise, Avis | Budget, or Hertz. | | Which is also why they share the same offices, | countertops, parking lots, and I assume cars too when you | go to the rental place in an airport. | [deleted] | bluesroo wrote: | My observation of rental car companies is that they have | figured out how to run on absolute skeleton crews. | | I rented one earlier this month online. When I showed up they | handed me a confirmation and told me to pick a car and drive, | key was in the cup holder. They had a manned exit barricade to | confirm the car you chose, but that was it. I'm not even sure | they cared if I picked a car that I didn't reserve, the exit | gate person scanned the car and reservation, so it probably | would have just updated the reservation on the spot. I don't | think it's even possible to predict with certainty what your | inventory is going to be 2-3 days out with this sytem. | | Just 2 people on the rental side, although I'm sure they have a | cleaning/ turnover crew. | drewg123 wrote: | Try a moving truck rental, and rent a van. They're set up for | one-way, and often have stock when car rentals are sold out. | | Some of my ex-wife's colleagues returned from a conference in | Denver back to the east coast in a u-haul van after all air | travel was shut down on 9/11 | thomasjudge wrote: | Good grief. Did they buy some bean bag chairs or something? | jeffrallen wrote: | You get what you pay for. I suspect, weather permitting, NetJets | is still flying. | | I fly very rarely. One of the reasons is that I cannot afford to | fly on carriers who charge the correct fare for sufficient | quality that actually reliably gets you to your destination. | | For destinations on the local rail network, I can afford it. | RedShift1 wrote: | Is this also one of the companies that completely outsourced | their IT? | water554 wrote: | Data point delta airlines IT is almost entirely offshore | qwertyuiop_ wrote: | Yup sweep it under the rug. SW outsourced all of their | development and support to WITCH. The VPs who get condos in | Bahamas in return will not ever mention that this is the result | of a failure of crew scheduling software because they signed | off on the outsourcing. | jrochkind1 wrote: | > Other issues that have exacerbated the airline's struggle to | accommodate the holiday rush include problems with "connecting | flight crews to their schedules," Perry said. That issue has made | it difficult for employees to access crew scheduling services and | get reassignments. | | Wait, what issue? Those words didn't actually say anything. | | Is this implying that it was a software failure with the | scheduling software? | francisofascii wrote: | Yeah, the word "connecting" has a double meaning. Do they mean | crews of connecting flights, or associating crews with their | proper schedule. | code_runner wrote: | Sounds like it's doing more than implying it. The scheduling | software seems to be pretty hosed at the moment | jrochkind1 wrote: | To me, "problems connecting flight crews to their schedules" | does not clearly say it's a software issue, but maybe implies | it. But you have other information that it is? | | Any info on the details? Like, I'd think this is what | scheduling software is for... | acedTrex wrote: | Appears their scheduling software is just woefully | inadequate and requires significant human intervention and | it just gave up. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/zw5lsl/comment/j1t | n... | epylar wrote: | Pilots literally having to call an 800 number to get their | schedule, not enough capacity on the 800 number. | sys32768 wrote: | Our local airport closed yesterday due to icy runways. Planes | would circle a while then refuel 100s of miles away, then return | to try again. | | We don't often see freezing rain here. It creates a hard, bubbly | layer of ice that cannot be scraped off with the usual tool. | Kon-Peki wrote: | Get out the curling rocks, eh! | mensetmanusman wrote: | A software bug can destroy a company these days. | AlbertCory wrote: | From personal experience: I used to preferentially use SWA | because they were great. Over the years, it seems to have become | that _every single flight_ is significantly delayed. Now I | preferentially don 't use them. | el_benhameen wrote: | I love not being nickel and dimed by them, and the companion | pass makes them significantly cheaper for family travel, but I | absolutely avoid holiday travel with them, especially winter | holidays. | faangiq wrote: | Let's see the C suite asset clawbacks. | DoingSomeThings wrote: | Incredible to see that 14 months ago there was an almost | duplicate outage. Clearly the operations teams are running too | lean and don't have enough slack to handle predictable | weather/sickness events. Seems like something you'd plan for. | Even at the 98%+ uptime range | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28823774 | hinkley wrote: | Could be lean, could be a bus number problem. They flock | together but are separate issues. | chasd00 wrote: | There's no slack at an airline, it's basically a real time | system. Imagine a bottling plant, if one part of the line | malfunctions the rest of the line just keeps throwing bottles | at the malfunctioning unit until the stop button is hit. | There's no way to build in artificial delay to those kinds of | systems. | | Even if you could do that at an airline the margins are so | razor thin. I bet there's a dollar value assigned to every | second a plane is not in the air. | bronson wrote: | This is not entirely true. Lots of airlines have had events | where they need to ground all takeoffs for a couple hours | while they put their systems back together. People don't die | when airline operations go down so artificial delays are used | occasionally. Lots of air travelers have experienced them. | | Yes, there's a dollar value attached to everything and | everything is being optimized. Southwest was among the | pioneers. See the story of the ten minute turn. | howinteresting wrote: | I think the way to do it is how the EU does it, where slack | is built in by law (large amounts of compensation for delayed | flights). You pay more for each flight in return for | predictability, and the race to the bottom is prevented. | | Though I'm not sure it would have helped in this case. | ghaff wrote: | And Aer Lingus had a meltdown just last September because | of network issues. | | https://simpleflying.com/aer-lingus-data-center-meltdown- | com... | howinteresting wrote: | While that is definitely unfortunate, it looks like the | system is working correctly. Aer Lingus is on the hook | for millions of euros thanks to EU law, and then it goes | after the IT provider to be made whole. | noirbot wrote: | I guess let's wait to see how it works out in the US? The | US government seems to be saying they're going to try to | do something about this, so it doesn't seem like SWA is | going to pay nothing here. | | Actually, it appears that Southwest is already saying | they'll reimburse tickets for canceled flights and | potentially pay out for necessary hotels and alternate | arrangements: https://www.southwest.com/html/air/travel- | disruption | howinteresting wrote: | EU compensation for cancelled flights is all of that plus | a monetary sum: | https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger- | right... | | edit: though there is an extraordinary circumstances | exception below. I'm not sure if this would qualify as | that given that it's a combination of an adverse weather | event and a technical system collapse. | dendrite9 wrote: | There are things called accumulation systems for lines that | serve as a buffer to make the line more resilient and able to | function if there is a malfunction somewhere in the line. It | took me a bit of time to think of the name but I have seen | them on large production lines down to small brewery | bottling/canning systems. | | I had a partner who worked on airline optimization several | years ago, as I recall there were standby aircraft in some | places that could be deployed to fix problems like a plane | needing unexpected maintenance. Or even needing a single | label required to be flightworthy. That Southwest doesn't use | hubs likely makes it more difficult to recover from this kind | of disruption before breaking. | | https://www.kinexcappers.com/accumulation-table/ | https://www.nerconconveyors.com/Nercon/Documents/White- | Paper... | kibwen wrote: | _> Even if you could do that at an airline the margins are so | razor thin. I bet there 's a dollar value assigned to every | second a plane is not in the air._ | | You either pay the predictable, ongoing cost or you pay the | massive, unpredictable cost like they are currently. There's | no free lunch. That is, unless you're an executive looking to | boost short-term profits by eliminating "redundancy" and then | peacing out before the whole thing collapses from your short- | sighted, greedy ineptitude. | pkulak wrote: | Is this really a massive cost, though? What does it cost to | release some statements to the media and maybe reimburse | some hotel receipts in 6 months? Especially balanced | against the fuel savings of grounding half your fleet for 6 | days. It's absolutely cheaper to run without enough staff | and then just deal with the fallout every couple years. No | one will remember this. Even the people effected will pick | the cheapest flight next time, not matter the airline. | noirbot wrote: | That does bring up an interesting question - are they | actually saving on fuel? I would have assumed, given the | relatively planned-out nature of most airline operations, | that fuel would be something contracted out in advance, | and that they may have already bought the fuel whether | they use it or not. | pc86 wrote: | Yes and no, they certainly buy fuel in bulk and several | weeks/months out, but they're still not flying for a | week, so their yearly fuel cost is going to be less than | projected. | dehrmann wrote: | People don't like to hear this now, but airlines chose the | right thing to optimize for. Air travel is rarely _that_ | important to have these redundancies, and they vote with | their wallets every time they buy economy tickets. Given | that safe is a baseline, most people value price over | reliability. | ThunderSizzle wrote: | In my experience, every airline will screw you if your | not their frequent flyer. Fly once a year? No one is | going to waive a fee or refund you anything. Might as | well go for cheapest price. | | My wife's experience shows SWA as an exception in that. | HDThoreaun wrote: | Airlines are too competing to have extra labor for | situations like this. Everyone will book on the other | airline that works 99% of the time and you'll be out of | business before a catastrophe hits. "Just add more slack" | is not an option that also allows these businesses to be | profitable. | chasd00 wrote: | years ago i interviewed for, and was given an offer, to work on | this very system. glad i didn't take it. I feel bad for the devs | trying to figure out what's going on. | bronson wrote: | It's an absolute nightmare of fixed-field records and XML | (Southwest uses Amadeus for scheduling but Sabre is just as | bad; and AFAIK operations at all airlines are a chaotic hodge | podge). Southwest performs all operations in Central Time | because nobody's figured out how to reliably add time zones to | all systems all at once. This means they have something like a | 34 hour operational day, and every flight must take off and | land in the same operational day. | | It's a satisfying job for the right personality type! | cratermoon wrote: | In some recent work I've been doing for an airline, I've | worked with 5 different and incompatible ways to represent a | passenger, depending on what part of the system you're | working in. | encoderer wrote: | My god. This is terrible but also riveting. I wish there was | a website devoted to collecting stories of how these internal | systems really work. Airlines. IRS. credit agencies. Etc. | jeffrallen wrote: | It's called "The Daily WTF". | awillen wrote: | I can't for the life of me understand how they're allowed to say | this is due to weather (and thus not provide the same kind of | compensation they'd have to if it were "Southwest's fault"). | Sure, weather is the precipitating (pun intended, sorry) cause, | but given that other airlines are almost all at <10% | cancellations, clearly Southwest's total lack of operational | robustness and competence are the real issue. The CEO himself | emailed Southwest staff and explained that one big problem is | their antiquated computer systems - that is unequivocally their | fault (and very personally the CEO's fault, since it's very much | his job to direct the sort of large scale financial investment to | do something like overhaul their system). | | I hope that DOT follows through on their earlier statement that | they're going to investigate this. The CEO of Southwest has | ruined more Christmases than the Grinch. Failures like this | should trigger incredibly severe consequences (tickets refunded | at 4x cost, $20/day paid to any passenger whose luggage is lost | until they get it, lost slots in airports) that make it | absolutely irrational to operate in the manner Southwest is. | fairity wrote: | > Failures like this should trigger incredibly severe | consequences (tickets refunded at 4x cost, $20/day paid to any | passenger whose luggage is lost until they get it, lost slots | in airports) that make it absolutely irrational to operate in | the manner Southwest is | | No need to implement the penalties you described if you're | simply trying to align incentives. Their market cap has fallen | by $1b, primarily due to this incident. | awillen wrote: | Their market cap today isn't what matters - if people forget | about this and continue to fly Southwest (which, let's be | honest, many will), their share price will recover when they | announce earnings. | | The reality is they save a lot of money by keeping virtually | no slack in their system and not doing things like scaling up | customer service during the holidays. If they lose some money | in flight cancellations, it's still rational for them to | operate like this. Plus the reality is they probably won't | actually lose much - most people whose flights were cancelled | will still end up taking Southwest because it's too expensive | (or not possible) to book last minute tickets on other | airlines. That means they just push them into the very end of | Dec/early Jan when they have open capacity anyway. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | > people forget about this and continue to fly Southwest | | For me it means that most customers would happily accept | such a disaster once in a lifetime in exchange for, say, | 10% ticket price reduction. | bronson wrote: | I think that's right. Customers have decided that maybe | getting charged a couple full fares once every ten years | is better than spending 10% extra on every ticket. | | Which makes sense. The airlines have decided this as | well. | awillen wrote: | While the capitalist in me agrees with you that this is | one the market can sort out (and believe me, I'm going to | pay more to not fly Southwest moving forward, at least | for 2023), I do think that this is just a case where | people are bad at making that calculation. I suspect most | people would pay 10% more for even a relatively small | reduction in likelihood of this kind of thing happening | at Christmas, given the potentially huge costs if it does | (missed time with family, being stuck in an airport for | days with children, lost payments for hotels and other | activities, etc.). People are generally quite poor at | properly factoring in low-probability, high-impact events | into their decisions, and I think that's happening here. | | Now whether the government should step in to protect | people from that bias is entirely another question. I | would argue yes, but I can very much see the other side | that would say to simply let the market sort it out. | fairity wrote: | > if people forget about this and continue to fly Southwest | (which, let's be honest, many will), their share price will | recover when they announce earnings. | | Well, if you believe this, go buy their stock (LUV). The | market disagrees. | chasd00 wrote: | I very well may buy some LUV depending on where they end | up over the next few days. Remember the Equifax security | breech that should have destroyed the reputation of that | company in 2017? | | Here's some historical stock prices | | 9/1/2017 $134.64 - everything's fine | | 9/15/2017 $87.99 - scandal breaks and hits the news | | 9/17/2018 $130.55 - one year post scandal | | people forget | awillen wrote: | Yeah, I actually did really well after the Deepwater | Horizon buying BP stock at the bottom, since the amount | of value it lost in market cap exceeded the largest fine | in history plus the cost of all the damage and lost oil | by something like an order of magnitude. | | That said, while in theory I actually think LUV is a | decent trade right now, broader market conditions will | keep me from messing with it. | supernova87a wrote: | "Weather" covers a lot of sins. You will find that a lot of | what gets called (and allowed to be called by the FAA/DOT) | "weather" is, as you point out, not really weather, but | operational choices. | | When a storm hits a city, yes, the first plane that had to wait | to take off from the airport can be said to be delayed by | weather. Every other plane waiting in line behind that plane, | delayed, or because they weren't able to get to that city from | other destinations because they run an overly tight schedule, | is due to operational choices by the airline. | | Some airlines have hubs in places where snow is handled ok. | Some don't. Others have them in places that have frequent | thunderstorms. Some airlines operate in Hawaii and never have | delays. | | JetBlue used to fly A321s across the country and in the winter, | strong winds would force them to stop in Kansas to refuel. | That's "weather" but also the airline's choices about how to | operate. | | I don't think you'll ever find the FAA/DOT is going to "root | cause" what weather means to airlines to be able to blame them | for operational / strategic choices. It would be like the | police writing up your car accident report and saying that the | reason you had a fender bender was because you chose to live so | far away from work. | | Thus, choose your airlines and roll your dice accordingly for | when you want to get where you want to be. | m-ee wrote: | Another example that bit me, flying from east coast to west | coast. Storm in the Midwest we can easily avoid but that | requires changing the route. Time to change the route with | ATC + slightly longer flight time made the pilot time out, | flight is cancelled and it's the last of the night. AA | refused to cover anyone's accommodations because the problem | was "weather" | awillen wrote: | I generally agree, but on the other hand I think the | situation here presents a clear case where you could draw the | line - if your airline is canceling at a rate that's, let's | say, double the national average, you no longer get to claim | weather. | | It's difficult to punish the kind of individual cases you're | describing, but from a game theory perspective that just | means that in situations like today's, you bring down the | hammer in incredibly punitive fashion in order to make a | single systemwide failure like this so costly that it's a no- | brainer to upgrade software and keep slack in the system | (particularly at high-traffic, high-importance times like the | holidays). | [deleted] | bodhiandphysics wrote: | One thing to note is that airline crew scheduling is np-hard | (trivially you can reduce Hamiltonian cycle to it). Ak | interesting semi-empiricle fact about np-complete problems. Take | a decision problem to determine if there is a schedule with k | crews. Now there is some k' that is the minimum such k. For many | Np problem problems the difficulty of the decision problem is | related to the ratio of k to k'. (Not all decision problems are | like this... those that are are on the complexity class APX. As a | quick rule of thumb however this works) In terms of airline | scheduling this means that if you more crews than you strictly | need, your algorithm is probably going to successfully schedule | them. When the number of crews drops below some critical value... | all hell breaks loose. Thinking about this in complexity terms is | useful I think. He issue isn't just bad software... with a small | enough number of crews, all software is bad, unless P = NP | maxerickson wrote: | I wonder if the difficulty at this point is algorithmic, or if | they even have the data to make "reasonable" decisions, never | mind optimizing them. | | Like what do they do with the bags that are sitting on the | plane for cancelled flights? Store them where they are? Figure | out their origin and start queuing them to be sent there? Try | to get information from the passenger about where to send it? | | And then with planes and crews, do they even have "potential" | flights where they would be able to reliably seat a worthwhile | number of passengers? | SoftTalker wrote: | > Like what do they do with the bags that are sitting on the | plane for cancelled flights? | | Eventually you send them back to the passenger's home | address. I've had lost luggage before that turned up on my | front porch a week later, some courier service had dropped it | off. | chasd00 wrote: | yeah it sounds like recovering from this requires standing up | a brand new organization in real time. I hope someone is | watching the trouble ticket system, imagine that going | down... | [deleted] | bodhiandphysics wrote: | I'm sure they know exactly where every plane and every flight | crew is at every moment. My point about algorithmic | complexity is that even with perfect knowledge, fixing this | is a computationally difficult problem. The idea was to show | how the properties of algorithms that perform combinatorial | optimization actually matter! | enneff wrote: | > I'm sure they know exactly where every plane and every | flight crew is at every moment. | | The story being circulated by Sw employees is that this is | the failure. The system needs to be manually updated when | flights are cancelled or changed, and in this situation | with a cascading failure they have completely failed to | keep that data accurate. SW employees have said they have | spent 24 hours on hold trying to inform the company where | they are. | | I don't think this has anything to do with algorithmic | complexity. | anon84873628 wrote: | The statements from employees indicate that SWA does _not_ | know where flight crews are at every moment. When a flight | is cancelled the downstream information is not updated | accordingly. Crew have to call a phone line and speak to | another human to update their information and assignments. | With the large scale cancellations due to weather, that | system was overloaded and fully collapsed. SWA had no | choice but to cancel the majority of their flights while | they sort out where the crews are at and how to schedule | them next. The debacle is a direct result of lack of | investment in modern software systems. | chasd00 wrote: | heh i wonder if they've asked everyone to use their | phones to share their location with their immediate | supervisor. Then someone setup a spreadsheet in | sharepoint and the supervisors are going at it. | someguydave wrote: | Maybe there are many crews who are not able to fly because they | hit the FAA hour limit? If so, then this cascade of failure was | predictable. | noirbot wrote: | Predictable, assuming they knew which crews in which cities | were close to their limit, which it seems like they don't now | that the system is down, which is most of the problem. | rossdavidh wrote: | While this would be an excellent justification for not being | able to schedule everything, it's not much of a justification | for not being able to schedule 2/3 of your flights on a day | with clear weather... | hagmonk wrote: | I don't get to exercise my dusty algorithms knowledge nearly | enough to follow this nearly as well as I'd like. Are we | talking about the bin packing problem and approximation ratios? | So, is the intuition here that when the ratio of bins to | objects goes up, the worst-case performance for the algorithm | goes down into the toilet? | raverbashing wrote: | Yes, theoretically it is NP, if you approach it naively. In | practice it is easier to optimize for sub-problems | | In practice, crews have their home base, their corresponding | qualifications (though for WN they probably only have one or | two _types_ ) | | And you can bet you can start cancelling flights once you don't | have enough crew. Problem is, your crew might have gone over | their allowed time and them (and your plane) are in Smallville, | OH and there are passengers in Chicago waiting to fly. | tgv wrote: | Also: you can work with sub-optimal solutions. Decent | approximations exist for many classes of certain problems. | Even running simulated annealing or genetic algorithm will | get you close to the optimum. I'm sure such a large airliner | has a staff with sufficient knowledge of optimization. | bodhiandphysics wrote: | I do simulated annealing for a living. Simulated annealing | on graphs works great when a) the diameter of the graph is | small (which for airlines corresponds to hubbie hub and | spoke models) and b). when you can accept relatively | approximate solutions. The issue it seems here is that | southwest doesn't have enough pilots. Algorithmically, that | means they can't accept approximate solutions! | raverbashing wrote: | > Algorithmically, that means they can't accept | approximate solutions! | | Well, of course they can | | Not enough pilots make the general problem infeasible, so | you have to make do what you have | | In practice this means a) flying the schedule as best as | you can b) get people/crew/planes back to hubs c) | prioritize based on displaced people/cost/other variables | bodhiandphysics wrote: | You have to be careful what you mean by approximate. In | this context, it means a schedule that requires more than | the optimal number of pilots. Another way of meaning | approximate is canceling routes till you can find a | schedule that fits the pilots you have. That's actually a | harder problem, and is not CS means by an approximation | algorithm. Obviously that's what SW has to do, but part | of the reason why things are so disastrous is that this | problem is quite difficult (in terms of algorithmic | difficulty) | bodhiandphysics wrote: | "Optimizing for subproblems" itself has issues. For instance | with a single hub (a complete hub and spoke model), the | problem is algorithmically easy. But a) flight distance is | much higher, and b) you run the risk of a single weather | disaster taking out your entire network, and c) lots of other | problems. My point was to suggest that its useful to | understand what's going on in terms of algorithmic | complexity. Southwest, because of decisions that they made I | should add, is facing an extremely difficult algorithmic | problem, and some of the issues of what's going on can be | understood by thinking out those problems. I.E. your | algorithms class actually matters | ProjectArcturis wrote: | I have always really wondered how airline scheduling software | works. Despite being pretty good with algorithms, I just have _no | idea_ how you 'd make a system that's robust to weather and | mechanical delays. | twawaaay wrote: | I don't have experience with airline scheduling but I have | experience with software in large financial corporations like | banks. The situation with banks (at least the ones I worked | with) is that there is a huge amount of software maintained | mostly by mediocre to bad teams. These teams fail a lot, the | software fails a lot, and yet everything seems to keep going. | | It is not about code or algorithm quality, it is about | procedural side of things -- how the organisation is | "programmed" to respond to failures. I use the word | "programmed" in a very broad sense -- for me setting up a paper | checklist and being able to rely on people to follow it is the | same as programming. | | I suspect the main difference between airlines and banks is | that banks can afford to throw money on the problem and just | get things done regardless of how inefficiently. | | Airlines are in the much worse position -- they _were_ able to | afford being inefficient and throwing money at the problem in | the past but can 't do it anymore. They work with old, outdated | software that wasn't built with efficiency in mind but now | don't have funds to change it and are forced to maintain what | they have. This may also be the answer to why sometimes they | just don't have capacity to react to problem and let it cascade | to bring everything to a halt. | blevin wrote: | Instead of framing this as saying they "don't have" the funds | and were "forced" into inaction, another framing that the | board of directors must consider is that current SWA | leadership failed in their responsibility to recognize, | prioritize, and manage the actual needs of their decades old | business. | twawaaay wrote: | I am unable to speak for the management because I have no | knowledge of their particular situation or extensive | experience in the matter. | | I can only speak about the forces that act on development | teams and what could most likely in my mind explain the | current situation. | htag wrote: | One important component is slack. Every airline at every | airport should have a certain number of crews and airplanes | capable of providing service in place of a delayed flight. | Running on maximum efficiency for airplanes and staff means | unexpected delays will cause cascading failures. Weather can be | forecasted, and additional crews can be routed to replace | probable future cancelled flights. Temporary staff and | increased hours can be utilized for peak demand seasons. We saw | similar problems with manufacturing failures when the supply | chain became unreliable because of a lack of slack. This type | of slack can be seen as an inefficiency and costs money, so | it's unsurprising to see budget airlines struggling. | | Another important component is disaster recovery. How quickly | can the system recover from missed flights? What is the game | plan for dealing with crews/airplanes that are out of place. | How will they return to normal operations? Often times having a | play book everyone is working from can lead to faster | recoveries than dealing with each individual crisis as it | happens, often with either too much micromanagement from | leadership or too little coordination between departments. The | play book generates a conciseness before the system is | stressed. | RC_ITR wrote: | > Every airline at every airport should have a certain number | of crews and airplanes capable of providing service in place | of a delayed flight. | | Good luck finding pilots to be "on-call" to fly anywhere in | the world (and most commonly to small US cities) on a moments | notice, with a jump seat return flight as their way home | (after a night in a small city hotel). | apelapan wrote: | You'll find that almost all airlines keep staff on call in | various places and with various reporting times, because | already at very small scale, you'll have some crew not | making it to work for whatever reason all the time. | | Maintaining right sized and right placed operational | buffers is an entire sub-category of within airline | scheduling software/consultancy. | | Those buffers will never cover a major disaster of course. | They should let you hit your on-time and cancellation | targets at smallest possible cost, though. | sokoloff wrote: | > Every airline at every airport should have a certain number | of crews and airplanes capable of providing service in place | of a delayed flight. | | Airline pax are probably not willing to pay for spare standby | aircraft and flight and cabin crews at every airport every | airline operates from. | | Southwest's original low-cost carrier business innovation was | to run an all-737 fleet and make business-wide efforts to | optimize for fast ground-turns, in order to get more flights | out of each aircraft. | bronson wrote: | Certainly not, that would destroy profit and | competitiveness. Spare airplanes are mostly in for non- | essential maintenance, and spare crews can be called up in | an hour or two. That's good enough. Catastrophic outages | every few years still cost less than building decent | redundancy into all operations. | | This is partly because airlines are still externalizing a | good portion of the cost onto their customers, who need to | rebook at short-term pricing. I'd love to see legislation | to address this loophole. | linuxftw wrote: | I don't pay for extra standby aircraft, but additional | flight availability is why I pick one airline over another. | If you choose to fly Spirit, and your flight is canceled or | delayed for any reason, you might not make it to your | destination for days. With a major carrier, you'll simply | be rebooked on the next flight. | | Southwest used to be a budget-friendly airline with decent | service. Now they're priced as much or more than the other | major carriers with the added friction of having to book | search flights only on their site. | ryandrake wrote: | Unpopular opinion but airline tickets are way too cheap for | what they are doing. My last trip to Vegas, the Uber ride | to the airport was more expensive than the airline ticket. | My Uber money went toward 1. The driver's labor, 2. The car | and gas, and 3. Uber's (mostly engineering) overhead. | That's it. And it was like $150! My airline ticket pays for | pilots with decades of training, dozens of trained | professionals and support agents, baggage handling, | security, airport operations, sometimes meal service and | entertainment, not to mention the wizardry of launching me | 30kft into the air so I can get to another state in an | hour. All that for $99? | jdminhbg wrote: | > 1. The driver's labor, 2. The car and gas, and 3. | Uber's (mostly engineering) overhead. | | 4. Taxes/fees set by the city and the airport | | > My airline ticket pays for ... All that for $99? | | Well, if you'd split the Uber with a hundred passengers | or so, it would have been a lot less than $149. | sokoloff wrote: | Plus left at a time and to a destination that you didn't | get to specify. | | Compare the Uber (personalized, on-demand) transport to a | private airplane more than a bus-in-the-sky. | noirbot wrote: | For comparison, a Greyhound bus on the same route I was | about to take a Southwest flight on was about $160 and | took 36 hours with 2 transfers compared to $250 on | Southwest with one transfer and 5 hours total travel | time. | | The costs are fairly equivalent, oddly enough. | eightysixfour wrote: | I know a bit about this with airlines - there's a lot of | thinking that goes in to making the system appropriately robust | but just as much, if not more investment, in optimizing | recovery for minimal damage as well. They have optimizers that | figure out the minimal damage from a plane being taken out of | schedule, and airport halting flights due to weather, or | whatever the issue may be. What's cool is the math that goes | into "minimal damage" with regards to passengers, crews, bags, | etc. | | You can poke around at the website for SlickOR | (https://www.slickor.com/) to get an idea of the surface level | work that goes into this. | ttcbj wrote: | I worked on the medical resident scheduling problem for a | while, and there is a giant body of work on all kinds of staff | scheduling problems going back to the 1960s at least. | | The two classes of solutions that I considered where | optimization solvers (see Gurobi Optimization for example), and | meta-heuristics (see the book Metahueristics: From Design to | Implementation). If I remember correctly, the people at Gurobi | started at a previous company which was spun out of an airline, | but I might be confused. All the algorithms in both classes of | solutions are so nuanced that it can take years to begin to | grasp how their strengths and weaknesses interact with your | particular scheduling challenge, and how the way you formulate | the problem interacts with the ability of the algorithm to | solve it. | | All that said, the real problem for me was a human one: If you | produce a viable schedule X, the organization involved will | always want to alter the rules to stretch the available | resources to cover more, and simultaneously all the schedule | staff will want more flexibility and nuance in expressing their | preferences. You, as the author of scheduling software, are | caught between them. Neither side is ever happy with the | result. | | I occasionally daydream about revisiting resident scheduling (I | don't recommend it, the people who use your software leave | every year, are not business oriented, and don't understand the | complexity of the task until they've tried it on their own | their first and only attempt). If I did, I would focus less on | algorithms, and more on incentives to reconcile the tension | between the organization, which wants to cover the most shifts | with the fewest people at the cost of flexibility and | preferences, and the staff, who want more flexibility and more | preferences satisfied. I think that is the core problem at a | business level. | bombcar wrote: | The easiest way to solve the tension is probably to add | additional money into the mix - the hard to fill shifts get | paid a bonus, etc. someone would figure out how to game it of | course but you already have this somewhat when overnights pay | more. | linuxftw wrote: | I was thinking similarly. Have people bid on shifts. | thenewwazoo wrote: | Pilots do precisely this already. | pc86 wrote: | Sort of. They bid based on seniority. So if you've been | there forever you get the cushy flight that pays a ton. | If you just joined to get the worst shift nobody wants | (because it's the last one left). | jasonpeacock wrote: | The field of science (math) that studies this (and applies it) | is called "Operations Research"[0] and it's about optimization | & planning. About 30yrs ago they started applying it to airline | scheduling, here's a few random papers I found: | | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245236750_Airline_S... | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030504... | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research | castratikron wrote: | Sounds like they don't have much of an idea either. | uptownfunk wrote: | They need a new CTO, there is no reason any of this could not | have been prevented by a solid engineering design. If we can have | autonomous vehicles, rockets that can be reused, social media | like tiktok, insta, snap, Twitter then no reason we can't have | mission critical systems to support southwest (or any airline for | that matter) solved by technology | eightysixfour wrote: | The comparisons you chose are terrible. We don't have | widespread autonomous vehicles. Rockets are complicated but | primarily constrained by knowable physics problems. Social | media sites are entirely digital systems that do not need to | deal with the complexity of the real world and, where they do, | like networking connections, they're built on abstractions to | manage that complexity. | | Logistics problems, especially the logistics of moving humans, | are both complicated and complex. You are talking about systems | which must interact with manual, human-in-the-loop processes | every step of the way. The feedback loops between the digital | systems and physical systems are often loose and very costly to | tighten (regulations, union rules, passenger behaviors) and the | underlying systems that all participants must interact with | were some of the very first widespread digital systems. | | Today's problem was probably preventable, but don't | underestimate how hard the problems become as soon as a system | begins to depend on humans and the real world. | bob1029 wrote: | > there is no reason any of this could not have been prevented | by a solid engineering design | | Not unless this new CTO's roadmap includes development of a | time machine. Engineering design alone will not prevent this | kind of outcome. | chasd00 wrote: | I've made this same comment in other replies but none of those | examples present the kind of labor issues an airline has. If | your essential workers don't show up / quit and operations | grind to a halt then no amount of technology is going to fix | that | [deleted] | htag wrote: | Is this a problem with the weather, with the scheduling software, | or with the recent shrink then expand of airline demand? Either | way, I don't think I'll book a flight with SW for a long, long | time. | alistairSH wrote: | Are there any airlines that haven't had similar problems over | the last 5-10 years? Seems like they've all had issues. And if | they haven't, it's just a matter of time. | hrunt wrote: | I am affected by this. We got halfway into our flight only to | find our next leg was cancelled. SWA will not (cannot?) rebook | anyone until the 31st. Our return flight was going to be Sunday, | so we rebooked from our halfway stop back home on Sunday. | | Here are some crazy things I have encountered. | | Rental cars in our city are sold out. Same for cities within two | hours drive. The websites will accept reservations, but when you | show up, they tell you they have no cars. Because it's the | holidays, busses and trains are booked and any flights on other | airlines are crazy expensive ($1500 one way). When you are stuck | in a city, you are probably truly stuck there. | | Your only hope of dealing with SWA is waiting in line at check-in | or a gate. The phones don't work. Online chat doesn't work. The | lines are long and slow. | | Luggage is hit or miss. If your bag was pulled off a plane, you | might find it in baggage claim, but most bags are on a plane or | on the tarmac. SWA told us it may be 30 days until we get our | luggage. They won't pull bags for people, and the agents that we | spoke with acknowledged and felt for people who may have had | medicine in them. | | The workers are as befuddled as the passengers. They have been | very nice and as helpful as they can be, but their phones haven't | been working and their computer systems have been slow. | | On Twitter, someone posted a video of the announcement at Houston | Hobby about no flights until the 31st and people keeping their | receipts for hotels, etc. They said the same thing at our | airport. | | People in the airport are so mad. It's unfortunate because it's | not constructive. But tempers are flaring, and frustrated | passengers who finally get to talk to an agent end up slowing | things down because they spend a lot of time trying to hear | something they're not going to hear. | | Ultimately, this is an operations failure. Companies talk a lot | about accountability, but the typical way you hold people | accountable is by replacing them with more capable people. It | will be very interesting to see if any executives leave SWA over | this. If not, I would say that no one was held accountable. | | To close, my family and I are fine. This is but a minor speed | bump in life. No one is dying, and we will see how SWA takes care | of the extra expenditures. Some people aren't so lucky. They have | meds in bags, or finances that don't allow them to spend multiple | nights in a hotel and get Uber trips for a few days. Hopefully, | SWA takes care of them, too. | slater- wrote: | have you checked to make sure you're not just stuck in the plot | of a Home Alone movie? | imchillyb wrote: | Every airline, pre-boarding, informs passengers to place any | and all necessary medication in their carry on bag. | | This has been procedure for the last 40 years. | | There is no excuse that is feasable or plausible for | 'forgetting' important medications in the checked baggage. | | This is a reading comprehension problem and not an airline | issue. | elAhmo wrote: | I had an international flight every month on average in 2022, | across Europe, and I was never explicitly informed about this | by airline or any of the friends and coworkers. | TomVDB wrote: | I have a million miles on United alone, and many more on | others as well: I've never once heard such a message either. | HDThoreaun wrote: | I've never heard this flying hundreds of times | 3-cheese-sundae wrote: | No excuse, none? Not even the harried passengers at the | terminal suddenly being told they need to check their carry- | ons due to lack of overhead bin space, right before they're | about to board? | | You have never forgotten to pack something, or perhaps | forgotten an important detail in a stressful situation? | vincent___ wrote: | At least it reduces the impact of human activity on global | warming. We can always talk about optimization, database, | companies... The responsibility of each individual is engaged. | 5400 flights, privileges of rich countries. | supernova87a wrote: | As I understand it, Southwest is particularly badly affected by | such issues because they run a lot of flights that are not in a | hub-spoke model, but rather serial flights one non-hub city to | the next and next (like eventually coming back in a loop). You | can see this by going to Flightaware.com for example, and | following back a flight's previous destinations. See for example | https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1092/history/20221223... | and "track inbound plane" a couple times. | | They jump around the country, much less frequently going back to | a hub as other airlines do. That means that the planes and crews | have a relatively harder time recovering from system-wide | disasters because they don't have as part of normal operations as | much ability to centralize or pool resources and get | people/planes reorganized. (everyone go back to base, consolidate | passengers, crew, planes and redeploy them and sort things out in | one place) | | Unfortunate, but that's their model. Good for some purposes, not | so good for others. Maybe it's them being quirky and an active | choice. I mean, up until a few years ago they did not fly to | Hawaii because their scheduling system / people / processes did | not want to have redeye flights. | chasd00 wrote: | > but rather serial flights one city to the next | | i would imagine that's especially vulnerable to disruption as | any delay/issue is magnified throughout the rest of the | flights. | pookha wrote: | They've operated without the hub-and-spoke model years but they | haven't had to operate with over 8% of their staff leaving. | They're understaffed. It was a major issue with Southwest all | throughout 2022 and it got brought up on their earnings call | with investors. They're a budget airline and they can't afford | to take that kind of staffing hit. | twblalock wrote: | Other airlines have staffing issues too. | | The bottom line here is that the hub-and-spoke model is more | resilient than the point-to-point model. | miguelazo wrote: | That is definitely not the case. The real issue is that | even the staff that did show up didn't know where to go. | There were employees lost for hours at Denver because the | call-in scheduling system went down. Some employees hit | their limits for work time before they could even obtain | their assignments. | spacemadness wrote: | Not having staff didn't seem to stop them overselling what | they can handle, however. They took a risk on stretching as | far as they could go in an ideal environment and here we are. | kulahan wrote: | This is probably tied to how deeply ingrained the | overselling habit is in the airline industry in general. | They're legally protected when doing this, and it's why | that doctor got dragged off that flight. | Waterluvian wrote: | I don't fly much but I noticed things like "the same flight | number takes off at the same time each day and is always the | same plane as a different flight number coming the other | direction." | | It must really help all the employees with routine and | consistency even if it's not optimal. | dehrmann wrote: | Most airlines have schedules that are consistent day-to-day. | It's the efficiency vs. resiliency tradeoff that's | interesting. I'd probably summarize it as "don't fly | Southwest in the winter." | | That said, I flew Southwest from SJC to LAS for CES one year, | connecting in SAN. Weather wasn't great, and they'd put you | on the next available flight with an empty seat. They were | even able to shuffle people without going up to the podium. | Legacy carriers would have drug their feet, there'd be a | line, and they'd charge for the privilege of changing | flights. | m463 wrote: | probably helps since they don't have assigned seats | (afaict) | curiousllama wrote: | > don't fly Southwest in the winter. | | I'd look at it the other way around: cancelling is so | annoying for them that they're often the last ones to do it | (barring catastrophic collapse, of course). | | When I was traveling weekly out of Chicago, I always made | sure to bring my Southwest credit card, just in case. | Southwest sucks, but it gets you home. | chrisbolt wrote: | United proactively rebooks you on a new flight if you will | misconnect, gives you options in the app, and issues | waivers that let you avoid weather by rebooking your own | flight (often waiving fare differences as well). Haven't | flown Delta or American as much, but at least United's tech | is a bit more modern. | makestuff wrote: | Yeah delta will do this as well. The app will let you | pick any flight that day for free if you do not like the | one it auto rebooked you on. I usually just take the one | it gives me, but if it tries to route me through DTW or | MSP with bad weather in the winter I will try to find one | that goes through ATL instead. | iudqnolq wrote: | Delta offers you a buggy website to rebook for no fee. I | changed to a flight that was about $1,000 more expensive | a few days ago. (note that the significant price change | is an edge case caused by travelling on Christmas being | particularly undesirable) | DoingSomeThings wrote: | Someone below linked this company as an example of | resiliency tools used in airfare. Interestingly, there's | a testimonial from United on one of the front page | videos. | | Maybe not 1:1 for what you're describing, but it | solution/reason, but does seem like a possible sign that | they're investing in proactive tools. | | https://www.slickor.com/ | code_runner wrote: | When I was delayed and flying delta they continually | rescheduled me until I boarded one of the flights. | | It was super convenient even if I was fuming over the | multiple hours delay. | marcosdumay wrote: | Pilots don't get into work on the morning, stay there for an | entire cycle, and get back home in the night. | | The planes are scheduled that way, but the people won't stay | for the entire plane's cycle. | Bonooru wrote: | Optimal isn't the right way to think about it. It's a | tradeoff. Hub-and-spoke is usually better at getting you to | your destination in less absolute time given the same number | of total flights since you can have more frequent "shuttle | flights" that travel to the hub, exchange goods/passengers, | and shuttle back. Point-to-point on the other hand, is better | for minimizing travel time since you go directly to the | destination. | maxerickson wrote: | I wonder if this event will end up being a demonstration that | they aren't sophisticated enough to use their operational | model. I would think planning decisions would at least try to | account for disruptions and recovery time. | | I see lots of people who are at least quite a bit less likely | to use them in the future (and they are still in the middle of | trying to fix it). | loeg wrote: | It also might be fine if they only have to deal with this | kind of event once every few years but it lowers their costs | substantially the rest of the time. I wouldn't love it as a | customer, but who knows. | spookthesunset wrote: | > I see lots of people who are at least quite a bit less | likely to use them in the future (and they are still in the | middle of trying to fix it). | | Meh, everybody always says that. In six months when this is a | distant memory... it will be business as usual. | makestuff wrote: | Yeah airline travelers are price conscious and it is a race | to the bottom. If they offer some crazy sale or cheaper | fares people will book it. Just look at Frontier/Spirit. | They consistently get horrible reviews but people deal with | it for a $50 flight. | tshaddox wrote: | People often try to say "airline travelers are price | conscious" as if there are several options in the same | price range and travelers will accept any reduction of | quality or service to save a nickel (I'm not claiming | you're suggesting this). But in my experience with US | domestic flights the options are basically one "cheap" | decently tolerable itinerary, a few slightly cheaper | itineraries that are like twice as long in total | duration, and then a couple of slightly better | itineraries with better amenities that literally cost | like twice as much or more. | | I just laugh at the upset attempts when you go to check | in online: "get priority boarding and 2 inches of legroom | for only an extra 50% on top of the ticket price." I | really don't see much evidence that there was actually a | race to the bottom. And I certainly won't blame consumer | preferences when I don't see any options for _slightly_ | better service for _slightly_ more money. | sokoloff wrote: | That depends on your city pair. | | Boston to Las Vegas, Orlando, or San Francisco, I've got | a wide variety of choices, 2-4 carriers flying more than | that non-stops per day. | | Flying from Des Moines to Presque Isle, Maine, I have | only a bunch of 2 and 3 stops on United. | mauvehaus wrote: | Boston is such a weird airport I'm not sure it's worth | bringing up except as perhaps an exception that proves | the rule. | | BOS has the "advantage" of serving a fairly large | population while also not being big enough to be a real | hub for anyone[0], while being simultaneously big enough | to have service from nearly everyone. | | Unlike a lot of airports smaller or serving fewer people | than BOS (and some of comparable size), you can get from | BOS to a whole mess of hubs. | | A few select routes (BOS to SFO as noted) are incredibly | well-served because of the volume of lucrative business | travel between the two and the fact that a whole mess of | airlines already serve both airports. | | [0] No, JetBlue doesn't count. Boston is as much a hub | for them as CLE[1] was for Continental. I.e. a second | class hub at best. | | [1] CLE by comparison only really serves Cleveland. | Columbus, Dayton, Cinci, Indy, Pittsburgh and probably a | few others from a similar radius BOS draws from all have | decent(ish) airports. All of those have basically the | same problem as CLE or are worse in some way. I've flown | through or into and out of all of them. | jlmorton wrote: | For the ~75,000 travelers directly impacted, it will | probably have some long-term impact in their purchasing | decisions. | | But for the 329,925,000 other Americans, many of whom have | a long history and belief in Southwest's reputation for | customer service and fair policies? They will have | forgotten by next week. | hrunt wrote: | Both can be true. Some people will swear them off. Some | won't. Some SWA will win back with steep discounting. | | For me (I am affected), this is actually another in a | series of recent events that are making me reconsider my | preference for SWA. They are no longer a "cheap" airline, | routinely more expensive than the other major carriers. | Their planes are not nice anymore. I've flown on a few | other airlines over the past few years and found their | planes to be nicer with more features (like chargers and | phone/tablet holders). And now this. The cancellations are | one thing, but they totally botched the communication of | it, and their practice of delaying flights throughout the | day only to cancel half of them after several hours left | people stranded. | | Will I stop using them? We'll see how they respond, but | they may not be my first choice anymore. | zippergz wrote: | Just as with ISPs, for many people in the US, true airline | choice is not a luxury they have. Depending on their origin | and destination, there may be only one airline that flies it, | or only one that flies without a ridiculous set of stops or | layovers. Even if people want to switch airlines, unless they | live near a major airport or have high flexibility on when | and where to fly, it's not really practical. | maxerickson wrote: | Yeah, I have 2 reasonably drivable airports that are both | served by Delta. It's even the case that I can mostly get a | less expensive flight with a good itinerary (airport to hub | to destination) or a more expensive flight with a bad | itinerary (airport to hub to other hub to destination). | | Is Southwest the lone primary carrier for many of their | airports? | vincent___ wrote: | At least it reduces the impact of human activity on global | warming. We can always talk about optimization, database, | companies... The responsibility of each individual is engaged. | 4000 flights, privileges of rich countries. | eiiot wrote: | My family and I are stuck in Long Beach after our flight was | cancelled. We called the airline and the next available flight is | Saturday. No hotel compensation, no partnerships with other | airlines for rebooking on another flight. What a nightmare. | samename wrote: | I just found out they have to provide some compensation or | reimbursement, eventually: | https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-... | | Save your receipts, and submit a reimbursement request. | Escalate if needed. | mdavidn wrote: | That page describes Southwest's obligations after | "controllable cancellations." When a cancellation is outside | their control, Southwest only offers to "seek to arrange a | discount" on accommodations. They list "weather" and "FAA- | required crew duty limitations" as elements outside their | control. | 650REDHAIR wrote: | This hasn't been weather related in days. | hrunt wrote: | SWA has been telling affected passengers to keep their | receipts for reimbursement later, so hopefully once things | clear up, they will go beyond the letter of their policy to | help make things right with their customers. No guarantees, | but also not many options otherwise for those of us | affected. | | Their brand is going to need it, so whatever that cost is | will probably be worth it for them. | elijaht wrote: | My datapoint: Had a flight this _Thursday_ from RIC- >ATL | cancelled this morning. Interesting that they are cancelling | flights this far out, where both cities are relatively unaffected | by the storm beyond some cold temps. | | Was a blessing in disguise for me as I could find a similar | flight on a different airline. Hope anyone else flying Southwest | can find a way to their destination | hrunt wrote: | The agent this morning told me that they are using the next | three days to move staff and planes where they need to be, and | the result will be a lot of cancellations when the routes don't | serve that. That's why nothing is getting rebooked until | Saturday. | asah wrote: | tl;dr: distributed systems are hard. | francisofascii wrote: | or maybe you meant to say logistics with little slack is hard | chasd00 wrote: | if i remember my lore correctly it's not a distributed system. | It was originally either a mainframe or like AS400 application. | I want to say it was related to Saber somehow... maybe they | leased it. When i interviewed there years ago they were porting | it to some kind of Java stack or maybe they had already ported | it and were building it out further. On a tangent, I have to | admit, their interview was the best one i've ever had. Very | competent people, well rounded process, it was actually more | fun than stressful but super challenging too. | | / this was a lonng time ago, like 10+ years, it could be a very | very different animal now | bronson wrote: | I don't think Southwest was ever on Sabre. Their scheduling | used to be in-house, now on Amadeus. Computerized operations | started with Braniff's software and have ... ah, grown since | then. Name almost any technology and it's probably running | somewhere in their stack. | 11235813213455 wrote: | This saves millions of tonnes of CO2 and pollution | smm11 wrote: | I don't understand this. I just flew from West to East Coast, | then back, on another airline. Left on time from origin and | transfer airport both ways, and arrived early on all flights. The | "bomb cyclone" has been gone days, and SW passengers are still | stuck, sleeping on floors, or have their bags hundreds of miles | away. | pc86 wrote: | Southwest is just not a good airline. | silisili wrote: | In my 20 or so years of travel, Southwest has never been a | good airline. But what more boggles my mind is that they've | never been the cheapest, either(ignoring spirit and the | like). Usually American or United was. | | Was that just where I lived (primarily in the east), or am I | missing something? | mdavidn wrote: | I live on the west cost. When I compare United and | Southwest, United is cheaper on face value but more | expensive with bags. They hide some of total cost in fees. | silisili wrote: | That's a good point. I rarely travel domestically with | checked luggage. | bmitc wrote: | There's no way Southwest hasn't been the cheapest. I just | cannot see that being possible given that they don't nickel | and dime you for everything. | | United is by far the worst airline imaginable. I actively | will not fly with them after being stuck on an airplane | with them for 19 hours straight due to their fuckup, only | to have to spend a night in New Jersey at a terrible hotel | because we then missed our connecting flight (obviously). | In the end, all they offered was a measly certificate that | required you to use it at United (and was the equivalent of | a mere fraction of the total flight cost). | silisili wrote: | I haven't flown in 3 or 4 years, if that matters. Most of | my flights were to California or DC, so perhaps that | matters too. | | I know what you mean about fees. I just booked American | for my wife last week, and it's horrid now. No free bags | anymore, and you have to pay to even pick your economy | seats. It was way more infuriating than the last time I'd | booked. | bmitc wrote: | Yea, it could totally be region dependent, something I | wasn't quite thinking of. | | We just did the same with American. It was like double | the listed price by the time we finished with bags and | fees. | | Almost all airlines have gotten worse due to them getting | rid of a lot of nonstop flights. | HDThoreaun wrote: | It completely depends on location. Southwest is super | cheap on some routes, less so for others. | tpmoney wrote: | My experience with SW has always been that they're better | than everyone else at their pricepoint, and below their | pricepoint the savings aren't worth the hassle. They've | gotten worse over the years, but they're still consistently | the roomiest flights I've been on, their employees have | always been friendly and I never really dealt with any | major delays with them. | | My experiences with Delta were that they were a 50/50 | between a nice experience or a "should have just bought a | Jet Blue / Spirit ticket" experience. My experiences with | United were that anything that wasn't a major route, you | were likely going to fly in a tubo-prop coffin and come out | with so many aches and pains any money you saved will be | spent on advil and massages. They're also the only airline | that's managed to lose my luggage twice. | chrisbolt wrote: | Everyone's experiences will depend greatly on the routes | they're flying and their home airport(s). If you're | flying on a regional for the legacy airlines, you will be | on a smaller plane (though turbo-props are pretty rare | these days). The worst is the CRJ200, aka "The Devil's | Chariot." | | Since Southwest only flies 737s, you'll get a roomier | ride than a regional. | jmugan wrote: | Out of Austin, Southwest is the only airline for many | direct flights. | vincent___ wrote: | At least it reduces the impact of human activity on global | warming. We can always talk about optimization, database, | companies... The responsibility of each individual is engaged. | 4500 flights, privileges of rich countries. | avalys wrote: | Astonishing. Based on reports from employees on Reddit (https://w | ww.reddit.com/r/SouthwestAirlines/comments/zw32yt/p...), the | actual story here is that Southwest has had a complete | operational failure and is simply incapable of determining where | their crews are, what flights they are eligible for, and | associating them with flights on the schedule. | | It sounds like there is a semi-automated system which broke | somehow, or more likely failed to support the load of cascading | changes that resulted from weather disruptions, and they simply | don't have the capacity or flexibility to deal with this other | than by cancelling flights for three days until they can sort | everything out manually. | | Reading between the lines a bit, one possible root cause is that | their semi-automated system required crew members to update their | status by phone when something goes wrong (perhaps with another | human in the loop), and the sheer volume of disruption overloaded | their phone system and resulted in the automated system becoming | completely decoupled from the actual state of reality without | sufficient bandwidth in the phone channel to get it back in sync | in a reasonable amount of time. | CharlesW wrote: | According to that post they also have no idea where bags are: | _" Checked bags are currently a disaster. Plan to not see your | checked luggage for at least a month. In the interest of 100% | transparency, some bags will be 30+ days lost in the system."_ | pwillia7 wrote: | Unremoved reddit post: | | On behalf of all employees: WE ARE SORRY! I will give it to you | straight- this meltdown was caused entirely by Southwest. It | was triggered by the storm, but the failure to recover quickly | is on Southwest 100%. If you are still hearing "weather" almost | a week after the storm, it's not true. Couple main points: 1. | Please be patient with us. We desperately want to do everything | we can to get you where you're going. 2. This shitstorm is | because the crew scheduling software went belly up and it | almost all has to be unraveled over the phone with crew members | calling scheduling. If we had better technology which | eliminated the need for phone calls, this would have been fixed | by now. 3. If you are able to find alternative transportation | to your final destination- DO IT. Another airline, bus, train, | Lyft, rental car, ANYTHING. Southwest WILL NOT be able to get | you to your destination anytime in the next few days. 4. Like I | said, it's gonna take at least a week to get back to normal | operations for Southwest. If anyone has questions, I will try | to answer them. I work ground ops at one of SWA's hubs. EDIT | FOR FAQs---- | | Checked bags are currently a disaster. Plan to not see your | checked luggage for at least a month. In the interest of 100% | transparency, some bags will be 30+ days lost in the system. | | Will my flight for X date go out? Next 3 days- plan on a | cancellation. 4-7 days- likely to go as scheduled. 7+ days- | should see operational recovery. | hinkley wrote: | Somewhere there's a retired guy sipping his morning coffee and | saying, "Told ya." | CyberDildonics wrote: | There are people actively doing interviews saying that. | achow wrote: | The Reddit post is now deleted. | | Saved screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/bchgmm7.jpeg | caycep wrote: | Granted my usually routine flight in 3 days, from BUR to SJC | got canceled. And no way to get thru and the usual handy dandy | "full refund!" button has been replaced w just an email form | with "we'll get back to you!" I sort of believe it | [deleted] | hintymad wrote: | > the actual story here is that Southwest has had a complete | operational failure and is simply incapable of determining | where their crews are, what flights they are eligible for, and | associating them with flights on the schedule. | | This is amazing. Southwest was famous for its operational | efficiency and quality. Companies eagerly learned from them. I | wonder what has changed. | iamtheworstdev wrote: | it's definitely epic. I know this is anecdotal but a friend | of mine and pilot for Southwest had to pay for his own hotel | room after he captained a flight a couple of days ago. SW | apparently thought he was in another state (and it wasn't a | neighboring one) even though he just flew the flight that | they scheduled him on. Not long (hours) after that he was | told to drive to the nearest Southwest physical location and | check in. Rumor is that all Southwest pilots were told that a | physical presence was required to verify location. | wwweston wrote: | Other Reddit discussion (with the occasional insider chiming | in): | | https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/zwd1fq/u4sammich_ex... | | https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/zw5lsl/southwest_pi... | shmatt wrote: | im kind of doubting that thread, not necessarily fraud but not | every employee has the full picture | | * this memo[1] from the SWA VP thats circulating dated December | 21st calling a staffing emergency saying all hell is about to | break loose. I'm pretty sure that guy didn't know of the | software crash before it happened | | * Every single piece of checked in luggage is going to take 30+ | days to be found? Weird none of the extensive press has | mentioned people not getting their bag. Also its pretty much an | airport thing and not an airline thing. Airports are in charge | of deplaning your luggage and bringing it to you | | * They're running 40% of flights completely manually with 0 | scheduling software? That's extremely impressive | | [1] | https://mobile.twitter.com/ruthschmidt/status/16074609858619... | pcurve wrote: | Wow... that memo... is filled with such contempt. It's | shocking. I wouldn't want to work there. | burkaman wrote: | Yeah, and just to add some context for people who might not | be familiar with US healthcare, what the VP is asking for | is effectively impossible, so this is an order to work | sick. The majority of Americans cannot just "go to the | doctor" whenever they feel like it, especially 4 days | before Christmas. The best most people could do in this | situation is call a doctor's office and be told they can | get an appointment in a couple months, or go to the | emergency room if it's an emergency. So the choice here if | you're sick is to waste emergency healthcare workers' time | and probably pay extra for unnecessary emergency care, go | to work sick, or get fired. | | This is obviously intentional, and in many parts of the US | totally legal. I don't know specific Colorado laws but | there is no federal law against this. | hodgesrm wrote: | On the flip side Southwest has stranded what look like tens | of thousands of passengers. The memo seems to be focused on | curing that problem. It's not clear what the alternative(s) | would look like short of ditching all their passengers. | | It looks like this is not a fun week for anyone who works | at Southwest. | burkaman wrote: | That memo was sent before the storm and before anyone was | stranded. It was an attempt to prevent a future crisis. | If your goal is to prevent a future crisis, alternatives | to ramping up employee abuse 3 days before a big storm | might be: | | 1. Hiring more people (more than 3 days in advance). | | 2. Paying people more so they don't quit. | | 3. Giving people paid sick time and not threatening their | jobs when they take it so that they don't come to work | sick and get a bunch of their colleagues sick. | | 4. Selling fewer tickets and running fewer flights if you | don't have enough capacity to support the current | workload. | cratermoon wrote: | That's a "beatings will continue until morale improves" | message. | paganel wrote: | That's also an excellent ad for why unions are needed. | tpmoney wrote: | Aren't most airline employees in a union? | burkaman wrote: | > I'm pretty sure that guy didn't know of the software crash | before it happened | | Why not? Some things aren't hard to predict, it's like a | Ticketmaster employee saying "our site is probably going to | go down when the Taylor Swift tour goes live". If you know | your systems are deficient then you can predict they'll fail | in a crisis, especially if that failure has happened before | (as it has for Southwest). | barkingcat wrote: | luggage is totally an airline thing, not an airport thing | sokoloff wrote: | > [it's] pretty much an airport thing and not an airline | thing. Airports are in charge of deplaning your luggage and | bringing it to you | | That depends on the airline and airport. It's extremely | common for the airline which operates out of a large part of | a terminal to do their own ramp work. | | Southwest employs thousands of ramp agents to do their own | ground ops and under-wing work at their bases. | [deleted] | avalys wrote: | It's not really a software "crash", it's more like, they know | their process can't handle more than a certain amount of | disruption before falling apart. And so if you can see that | due to weather, etc. a lot of disruption is likely to happen, | you can predict there's going to be a problem, and also | predict that you simply don't have the staffing and systems | in place to do anything about it. | phpisthebest wrote: | There have been plently of reporting about the bag issue, | including a Chicago local reporter posting a video of 100's | or maybe even 1000's of bags in chicago most of southwest | tags on them | | It appears there was a MASSIVE disconnect between baggage and | people, bags are ending up all over the place even though the | people never left. | tiahura wrote: | Sounds the the perfect setup for an AirTag commercial. | ghaff wrote: | The rare times I check a bag I throw an AirTag in. | | Although the airline app has always been accurate it's | cheap insurance if a bag isn't properly scanned or | something. | airtag wrote: | I've been flying with an airtag in my luggage in Europe | since summer this year. | | It's been great. My luggage missed a connection in | december, when I arrived at the destination I could | instantly see that it still was at the other airport. So | while the others were waiting for the bags, I could | already file a complaint (at the nearly empty complaints | queue). Then three hours later I could see bag movement | to the tarmac and knew that my bag cought the next | flight. | | Also, when in a city, it's a lot of fun to say: bring me | back to my bag instead of looking up the hotel address. | | For anyone with an iphone & checked bags I can really | recommend it. | Dragonai wrote: | You bagging the username "airtag" just to share this | comment is so funny. | | I think this is a great idea though and I didn't even | think about "bring me back to my bag" - that's awesome :) | bombcar wrote: | iPhone alert: there are ten thousand airtags near you | giantrobot wrote: | Well that at least narrows it down to _near_ you. /s | karlkatzke wrote: | > calling a staffing emergency saying all hell is about to | break loose | | That memo is specifically about ground operations at DEN, and | specifically because of the arctic weather conditions and a | high number of sick calls and ramp agents that outright quit. | You can earn more flipping burgers in Denver than you can as | a SWA gate agent with five years of experience. Failing to | pay staff is also a management failure. | | The scheduling software crashed due to the number of pilots | and flight attendants that were out of position and the | number of changes that were made to the schedule. I would | imagine that there was an overflow in some situation -- i.e. | "the number of changed schedules should never exceed 65535" | that worked every year until this one. But this system was | already known to be unstable, another Reddit comment said | that "there are settings you don't change for fear the entire | thing will crash." Which it has before in 2016. Not expecting | that history will repeat itself and doing something about it | is also a management failure. | | > Also its pretty much an airport thing and not an airline | thing | | Absolutely incorrect. While the airport runs the automated | conveyance system that gets the bag from where the rampers | drop it to the baggage claim, the people that handle the | baggage at every manual step in between are SWA employees. If | there aren't enough of them, the bags don't make it on the | plane on time. | | Notice that the people doing this work for Southwest Airlines | are all wearing Southwest uniforms. | | Like most complicated failures, this was failure with | multiple causes and contributing factors. The core of the | problem seems to be that management was rent-seeking without | making appropriate structural changes to keep up with system | load. | verall wrote: | There's tons of people without bags, and additionally due to | the total operational breakdown there is no one to ask about | where your bag is and hear any idea about what's going to | happen. | kart23 wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/zw5lsl/southwest_pi. | .. | | i believe this story. the scheduling system is too fragile | and can't automatically pick up disruptions to crew movement. | they're still manually scheduling some crews, but I think | their main problem is they don't have a way of knowing which | crews are where and therefore can't schedule flights. and | it's not every single piece that's going to take 30 days, but | it seems pretty likely that some bags will be lost that long. | treis wrote: | It's not just that. There's complex rules around how | frequently crews can work flights and how much time off | they need. Delays can cause ripple effects as an hour delay | can make an expected available crew unavailable. Then you | have a mismatch of available crews and planes and scheduled | flights. It's one big thorny ball of spaghetti that even | the best designed computer system will struggle to | unwravel. | eightysixfour wrote: | And to top it off, unions fight tooth and nail to make | sure this type of information cannot be tracked, which | keeps a lot of systems manual. I understand why the | unions don't want the data to be captured, but it also | makes it hard to optimize physical systems. | raverbashing wrote: | > the software for scheduling is woefully antiquated by at | least 20 years. No app/internet options, all manual entry | and it has settings that you DO NOT CHANGE for fear of | crashing it. | | But hey it's cheaper if we don't change it right? /s | | (and I kinda can agree with this, like 10% because they | might end contracting with some bigger IT company that | doesn't care about shipping something that works) | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote: | Replacing an airline scheduling system sounds insanely | complex. So many moving pieces, tens of millions of | physical entities to track per day: crew, passengers, | planes, spare parts, luggage, crew maximum allowed shift | schedules, open gates, interacting with | domestic+international terminals, seat assignments, and | so on. Edge cases on edge cases on edge cases developed | over years, probably in some god awful language running | on a mainframe somewhere before "best practices" were a | thing. | | Modernizing such a system would take enormous political + | real capital. The new system would undoubtedly have many | growing pains as formerly resolved problems were not | covered in the new system. It's no surprise nobody would | want to touch such a system. | jchanimal wrote: | One of the more tangible outcomes from my work on mobile | sync is the United scheduling software. Seems like | Southwest was too little too late on IT upgrades. | https://www.couchbase.com/customers/united-airlines/ | apelapan wrote: | How is Couchbase in general and the mobile sync in | particular relevant to United not having this disaster | right now? | | I've worked with airline scheduling software at almost | the scale of United (about half the size, for the largest | customer). That was using an Oracle database, which was a | bit of a pain and a big expense, but worked fine as long | as there was competent admins and competent devs. Would | Couchbase be disaster-proof even when run by clowns? | | Not saying there aren't better and worse choices for | databases in any given situation. Just saying that there | are lots of them that work perfectly well in competent | hands. | jchanimal wrote: | Architecture advantages over the phone based system | described upthread are obvious. The reason United chose | Couchbase is because it's designed for offline updates. | So if a plane, phone, or airport is disconnected they can | still do the data entry work and reconcile | asynchronously. | jcomis wrote: | I flew out of Denver after several delays/cancels and not | only was the baggage area full of bags, the outside gate area | was absolutely flooded with bags COVERED in snow. Which means | they have been there for days. I'm talking dozens and dozens | of haulers loaded to the brim with bags covered in snow. The | baggage area was wall to wall bags. | | Additionally I was told (by a crew member) Southwest refused | to meet wage demands with ramp / fuel crews so they all quit. | Apparently they sent them an email basically saying a | recession is coming so be thankful you have a job... | Meanwhile all other jobs pay more in the area. Anecdote I | know, but we did have to wait 2.5 hours for fuel on my | flight. | chasd00 wrote: | a people problem like you describe seems much much harder | to solve in any reasonable time frame compared to a | software issue. | cududa wrote: | Well I mean the article we're commenting on mentioned the | baggage issue and has pictures of it | pembrook wrote: | Incidents like this go a long way toward teaching corporate | America that software shouldn't be some forgotten "IT" vertical | on your org chart that you staff with random contractors. | | Software is core to your business. If you don't invest in it, | you're going to pay the price. | lezojeda wrote: | They are already pretty resentful at us because we have such | high salaries compared to the rest of the population... I bet | that nobody is willing to give any penny more to their IT | departments | bmitc wrote: | People mistaking software as something that just _does | something_ is the problem. Software is stored and executable | knowledge, so if some component of that breaks down, you need | to be able to pull it from somewhere else. Otherwise, you get | situations like this. | 0x445442 wrote: | Yeah the storm angle is a lie. | BitwiseFool wrote: | This is hearsay, but I believe any cancellations due to | weather are not subject to fines and fees from the FAA and | the airline is not obligated to provide more generous | compensation/accommodation for customers. So if there's any | reasonable way to blame a failure on inclement weather | airline companies will do so without hesitation. | bumby wrote: | > _cancellations due to weather are not subject to fines | and fees from the FAA_ | | I thought this too, but apparently there are no federal | regulations other than reimbursement for the direct costs. | | "Airlines are not required to provide passengers with money | or other compensation for costs that fall outside of the | cancelled airline ticket and fees tied directly to the | airline ticket (such as baggage fees, seat upgrades, etc.) | when flights are cancelled." [1] | | "Each airline has its own policies about what it will do | for customers on bumped or cancelled flights. There are no | federal requirements." [2] | | However, there are rules around "bumping" passengers on a | flight. | | "An airline is required to compensate you after | involuntarily bumping you from an oversold flight in | certain situations. However, there are many situations | where you are not entitled to compensation." [3] | | [1] https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation- | consumer... | | [2] https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-are-policies-bumped-or- | cancelle... | | [3] https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation- | consumer... | 0x445442 wrote: | You're wrong dude. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthwestAirlines/comments/zw6upo/ | h... | ipython wrote: | How does that post in any way refute the parents point? I | agree with the parent that management will try like hell | to blame this on the weather- heck they already are. Just | check out their press releases. | 0x445442 wrote: | Yeah I'm a bit confused how the comment even relates to | mine. I took it to mean that my assertion that laying | blame on the weather for this mess is bogus and a lie. | But that assumption may be wrong. | ThunderSizzle wrote: | He's not wrong. Every airline will attempt to blame | operational issues on non-finable causes, such as | weather. | tedunangst wrote: | So what are the finable causes for flight cancellation? | kube-system wrote: | It is likely _both_. Scheduling is quite easy when it goes | normally. Scheduling becomes a more difficult task when more | exceptions happen. That reddit post is by is some boots-on- | the-ground employee, not someone who understands the | algorithmic details of SWAs somewhat unique routing | challenges. | EFreethought wrote: | > Scheduling is quite easy when it goes normally. | Scheduling becomes a more difficult task when more | exceptions happen. | | I think some slack/spare capacity or redundancy somewhere | would make a LOT of problems less likely to happen. Running | lean only works out when nothing goes wrong. I know I | should not be shocked by the extent of human stupidity, but | why the "business" types do not get this is bizarre to me. | | And paying people more would help too. | HDThoreaun wrote: | The airline business is too competitive for labor slack. | People put up with spirit's bullshit because it's $5 | cheaper. Any airline that incorporates slack will | immediately find itself without customers. If they make | it to a catastrophe it would work out, but it's extremely | unlikely that they will be on business that long. | tpmoney wrote: | That memo from the VP someone linked earlier seems to | indicate their slack / spare capacity has already been | used. | phpisthebest wrote: | It seems they do their scheduling like they do their | seating... it is all Free for All | bombcar wrote: | Should just text all pilots to bum-rush any plane they're | equipped to fly. Why not add the two front seats into the | free for all? | kube-system wrote: | You joke, but being able to swap any pilot to any plane | is part of the reason their fleet is 100% 737s. | vhiremath4 wrote: | I received a notification that my flight had been cancelled from | North Carolina to New York at 12am for a 12pm flight today. My | "software incident" senses started tingling and I immediately | redeemed credit and rented a car instead (currently on the road). | So happy I did that. | lancesells wrote: | That's an incredible amount of people traveling. Even at 100 | people a flight that's 540,000. Half a million people. | 0x445442 wrote: | This is BS. The storm was last week. | pimlottc wrote: | Effects from the storm linger. Buffalo's airport shut down due | to weather issues and remains closed through at least | Wednesday. | JustLurking2022 wrote: | Seems they only linger for Southwest, as they made up 90% of | all flight cancellations today. | josephcsible wrote: | There's also the issue that a storm, no matter how bad, | shouldn't make them forget where they left their crew members | and your bags. | 0x445442 wrote: | In the case of Southwest the scope of the issues is not | because of the weather. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-27 23:00 UTC)