Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

flightradar24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#31

Post by treyfitty »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #24
treyfitty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't d…

But the way you imagine it makes it sound like a complete coincidence that they happened to time it so perfectly well so as to use the gap of calm air effectively... whereas that surely seems pretty well-calculated.

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. My comment makes no suggestion of any coincidences, nor mention any timing to use calm air effectively.

Yes, timing calm air effectively requires calculation. I'm at a loss when deciphering how that relates to what I'm saying.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#32

Post by ars »

I'm wondering about the ground crew willing to stay in the airport to help this flight get going - and then having to get to a shelter in the middle of a hurricane.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#33

Post by mistercow »

treyfitty wrote: post #18
passivepinetree wrote: post #12

Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't d…

For reference, the cost of a 737-900ER is about $100M. The value of the PR that comes from a heroic evacuation is hard to measure.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#34

Post by adamzerner »

treyfitty wrote: post #18
passivepinetree wrote: post #12

Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't d…

PR benefits seems like another plausible explanation.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#35

Post by Swizec »

treyfitty wrote: post #18
passivepinetree wrote: post #12

Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't d…

> I don't think it was about revenue

Just look at all this free PR.

But I choose to believe it was about giving people one last chance to get out.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#36

Post by rpeden »

hapless wrote: post #7

The best part is that the hurricane's tailwind shaved 40-odd minutes off the itinerary.

Most of the early return happened because the ground crew managed a really quick turnaround and so the flight departed Puerto Rico 25-30 mins early.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#37

Post by brm »

treyfitty wrote: post #18
passivepinetree wrote: post #12

Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't d…

It's also my understanding that the passengers they flew in were FEMA workers and 100 or so of the people they flew out were "nonrevs" with seats still open on the plane after that i.e. Most of the people who they flew out worked for airlines and no one was kept off the plane due to space

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#38

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

Dowwie wrote: post #11
sixdimensional wrote: post #2

Wow, this is really incredible. The flight path out of Puerto Rico is nearly perfectly optimal to avoid the weather. I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Bravo.

I wouldn't glorify the analytics too much in this case. I'm confident that the management and the pilots made decisions that far exceeded decisions that could be made with data approximations.

Made decisions based on what? Astrological charts?

You need meaningful data to make meaningful decisions. Otherwise you are mistaking luck for expertise.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#39

Post by lightbyte »

lisper wrote: post #30
lightbyte wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying through a hurricane is not dangerous at all, especially for a massive plane like a 737. Airplanes are incredibly resistant to horizontal winds, which are all a hurricane is. It's vertical winds that are dangerous to fly through, which is what thunderstorms create.

Hurricanes usually have embedded thunderstorms.

So does non-hurricane air. The hurricane by itself presents very little danger to a plane in the air.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#40

Post by throwaway613834 »

treyfitty wrote: post #31
throwaway613834 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the way you imagine it makes it sound like a complete coincidence that they happened to time it so perfectly well so as to use the gap of calm air effectively... whereas that surely seems pretty well-calculated.

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. My comment makes no suggestion of any coincidences, nor mention any timing to use calm air effectively. Yes, timing calm air effectively requires calculation. I'm at a loss when deciphering how that relates to what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory.

(In no way am I playing down what they did though. I'm only commenting on your analysis.)

Post reply on HN