Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport

[ATLontheRISE]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I understand why some may disagree, but I stand by my comment.

I agree that ATL is a well-oiled machine most of the time and I also agree that GA Power deserves some of the blame. But I also think that an entity that didn't have an emergency plan in place for this type of situation (City of Atlanta) and an entity who exasperated the problem by their short-term profit-driven style of operations (Delta) share some responsibility for the huge mess that occurred. That's just my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

You sticking to your story huh. Lol. Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. It’s nonsense that Delta would change the most profitable US Airline model because of a fluke disaster. Calm down!

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

...and an entity who exasperated the problem by their short-term profit-driven style of operations (Delta)

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Delta is the most profitable Airline in the World, and the most admired U.S. Legacy carrier. J.D. Powers rates them the best, year after year.

Delta had absolutely nothing to do with what happened, and the sudden shutting down of the hub with no notice at all (unlike weather issues) wasn't in their playbook. Believe me, they'll learn from whatever mistakes they made in the aftermath.

[Jetlanta]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Delta is the most profitable Airline in the World, and the most admired U.S. Legacy carrier. J.D. Powers rates them the best, year after year.

Delta had absolutely nothing to do with what happened, and the sudden shutting down of the hub with no notice at all (unlike weather issues) wasn't in their playbook. Believe me, they'll learn from whatever mistakes they made in the aftermath.

Agreed. Delta is probably the most long-term focused airline in the U.S., if not the world. Any statement to the contrary is simply ill-informed.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by cabasse

GA power. Not Atlanta.

Right! It was electricity problem in the tunnels. So now, they has been restored.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by ATLontheRISE

You sticking to your story huh. Lol. Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. It’s nonsense that Delta would change the most profitable US Airline model because of a fluke disaster. Calm down!

I really don't care what Delta chooses to do. I merely suggested ways they could easily mitigate this type of situation. If they choose not to, for whatever reason(s), it's well within their right as a private, for-profit entity. That said, doing so means they also share some responsibility in exacerbating the situation and criticism of their choice is perfectly fair game.

My focus is on the consumers (individual passengers) who were negatively impacted by a combination of factors (not how much money a business is making for its shareholders), which include the lack of proactive emergency planning and a operational strategy that doesn't prioritize the needs of its customers when disruptions like this occur. To repeat, I'm sorry if some disagree that Delta's disproportionate reliance on one airport for their operations (virtually building a house of cards) is not relevant to the discussion, as I feel it very much is relevant.

[Jetlanta]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I really don't care what Delta chooses to do. I merely suggested ways they could easily mitigate this type of situation. If they choose not to, for whatever reason(s), it's well within their right as a private, for-profit entity. That said, doing so means they also share some responsibility in exacerbating the situation and criticism of their choice is perfectly fair game.

My focus is on the consumers (individual passengers) who were negatively impacted by a combination of factors (not how much money a business is making for its shareholders), which include the lack of proactive emergency planning and a operational strategy that doesn't prioritize the needs of its customers when disruptions like this occur. To repeat, I'm sorry if some disagree that Delta's disproportionate reliance on one airport for their operations (virtually building a house of cards) is not relevant to the discussion, as I feel it very much is relevant.

It is interesting that you have already determined that Delta, the most operationally-reliable major airline in the world, has failed to proactively plan for disruptive events such as this. First of all, it seems pretty clear that Delta had nothing to do with this. An investigation will determine exactly what happened, but it certainly had nothing to do with Delta.

As someone who works in this industry (not for Delta nor ATL), Delta's "reliance" on ATL is the core of its historic success. It is also the core of Atlanta's success over the decades. But in this industry, disruptions will happen. This one wasn't due to nature causes, but it's impact was similar. It was unfortunate for everyone involved. But 24 hours later Delta's operation was basically back on track. Given the complexities of airline/airport operations, that is practically a miracle.

But it isn't a miracle. It is a testament to exactly what you rail against. In fact, Delta's IROP (Irregular Operations) plan at ATL worked fantastically given the circumstances. Those of us in the industry are marveling at how quickly they got the operation back on track.

Here is the tradeoff. Either ATL is the busiest airport in the world and Delta operates the most successful hub in the world, or not. No manner of planning will EVER mitigate an airport completely losing power for 10 hours. The question is, how quickly is it mitigated and how quickly do you recover. Delta did a fantastic job here.

In comparison, look at the computer meltdown they had earlier in the year. That was a mess. Delta acknowledged as much and has subsequently invested $200M in new IT infrastructure to prevent such an occurrence again. If you were complaining about that situation, we'd be in more agreement. But you insinuation that a greedy company doesn't care about customers and neglected proper planning and even network strategy is bunk. Delta has proven to be the MOST operationally-reliable major airline in the world over the past many years precisely because it does all the things you imply it doesn't.

I get what you are trying to say and I appreciate the point you are trying to make. But as someone who has spent 25 years in this business, I'm going to suggest that you are off base here.

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by Jetlanta

It is interesting that you have already determined that Delta, the most operationally-reliable major airline in the world, has failed to proactively plan for disruptive events such as this. First of all, it seems pretty clear that Delta had nothing to do with this. An investigation will determine exactly what happened, but it certainly had nothing to do with Delta.

As someone who works in this industry (not for Delta nor ATL), Delta's "reliance" on ATL is the core of its historic success. It is also the core of Atlanta's success over the decades. But in this industry, disruptions will happen. This one wasn't due to nature causes, but it's impact was similar. It was unfortunate for everyone involved. But 24 hours later Delta's operation was basically back on track. Given the complexities of airline/airport operations, that is practically a miracle.

But it isn't a miracle. It is a testament to exactly what you rail against. In fact, Delta's IROP (Irregular Operations) plan at ATL worked fantastically given the circumstances. Those of us in the industry are marveling at how quickly they got the operation back on track.

Here is the tradeoff. Either ATL is the busiest airport in the world and Delta operates the most successful hub in the world, or not. No manner of planning will EVER mitigate an airport completely losing power for 10 hours. The question is, how quickly is it mitigated and how quickly do you recover. Delta did a fantastic job here.

In comparison, look at the computer meltdown they had earlier in the year. That was a mess. Delta acknowledged as much and has subsequently invested $200M in new IT infrastructure to prevent such an occurrence again. If you were complaining about that situation, we'd be in more agreement. But you insinuation that a greedy company doesn't care about customers and neglected proper planning and even network strategy is bunk. Delta has proven to be the MOST operationally-reliable major airline in the world over the past many years precisely because it does all the things you imply it doesn't.

I get what you are trying to say and I appreciate the point you are trying to make. But as someone who has spent 25 years in this business, I'm going to suggest that you are off base here.

Thank you for you insight. As for the issue with ATL I think there are two components of the analysis 1) why did this happen/was there anything that could have been done to prevent it, and 2) how did thy respond to it when it happened.

As for why it happened I believe the preliminary analysis is that this issue was caused by bad electrical engineering. There should have been a greater separation between the main power source and the back up power source. One fire should not have been able to take out both simultaneously.

That brings us to how ATL responded, because if the reason for the outage is bad electrical engineering/design there is little blame that can be placed on the current regime. Could they have done a more thorough survey of their vulnerabilities and caught this? Perhaps, but most operators will be forgiven for relying on the skill of their design team. For the actual response I think ATL lacked accurate real time information on how bad this was and how long it would take to recover power. If ATL had known that sooner (which may have been unknowable because of the location of the fire and difficulty in putting it out) I think they would have clearly deplaned and evacuated sooner (before dark). As I stated, I'm not sure the information was knowable and if the power was going to be restored sooner I don't blame them for giving themselves every opportunity to get operations up and running on the same day.

Perhaps this will be read as too sympathetic with ATL. This is certainly a "hot take" with limited information. They need to do a complete review. Regardless of how soft I may be on ATL I do believe this should have never happened, I just think that it should be prevented by better design in the electrical and fire suppression systems.

[atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I really don't care what Delta chooses to do. I merely suggested ways they could easily mitigate this type of situation. If they choose not to, for whatever reason(s), it's well within their right as a private, for-profit entity. That said, doing so means they also share some responsibility in exacerbating the situation and criticism of their choice is perfectly fair game.

My focus is on the consumers (individual passengers) who were negatively impacted by a combination of factors (not how much money a business is making for its shareholders), which include the lack of proactive emergency planning and a operational strategy that doesn't prioritize the needs of its customers when disruptions like this occur. To repeat, I'm sorry if some disagree that Delta's disproportionate reliance on one airport for their operations (virtually building a house of cards) is not relevant to the discussion, as I feel it very much is relevant.

Delta has several large hubs that don't just rely on ATL

Delta daily flights from large hubs:
ATL - 1038
DTW - 455
MSP - 439
LGA - 274
SLC - 256
JFK -223
LAX - 175

[atlwarrior]

Mods please delete

[the urban politician]

I was at the Atlanta airport the moment the power went out. We waited there for 2 hours, people were singing Jingle Bells.

Eventually we gave up and drove back to Chicago after we couldn’t find any reasonable backup flights

[smArTaLlone]

Originally Posted by daharris80

Thank you for you insight. As for the issue with ATL I think there are two components of the analysis 1) why did this happen/was there anything that could have been done to prevent it, and 2) how did thy respond to it when it happened.

As for why it happened I believe the preliminary analysis is that this issue was caused by bad electrical engineering. There should have been a greater separation between the main power source and the back up power source. One fire should not have been able to take out both simultaneously.

That brings us to how ATL responded, because if the reason for the outage is bad electrical engineering/design there is little blame that can be placed on the current regime. Could they have done a more thorough survey of their vulnerabilities and caught this? Perhaps, but most operators will be forgiven for relying on the skill of their design team. For the actual response I think ATL lacked accurate real time information on how bad this was and how long it would take to recover power. If ATL had known that sooner (which may have been unknowable because of the location of the fire and difficulty in putting it out) I think they would have clearly deplaned and evacuated sooner (before dark). As I stated, I'm not sure the information was knowable and if the power was going to be restored sooner I don't blame them for giving themselves every opportunity to get operations up and running on the same day.

Perhaps this will be read as too sympathetic with ATL. This is certainly a "hot take" with limited information. They need to do a complete review. Regardless of how soft I may be on ATL I do believe this should have never happened, I just think that it should be prevented by better design in the electrical and fire suppression systems.

My understanding was that the fire occurred in the section containing the switching mechanism that would normally change over to the redundant power sources. If nothing else, this should cause GA Power to engineer the airports network so that this cannot happen again.

[daharris80]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

My understanding was that the fire occurred in the section containing the switching mechanism that would normally change over to the redundant power sources. If nothing else, this should cause GA Power to engineer the airports network so that this cannot happen again.

That's my understanding as well. However, I believe the reason the power source did not properly switch was that the two lines (main and alternate) were too close together and allowed the fire from one to spread for the other. The entire system should be designed to 1) handle a fire in the switching mechanism, and 2) not allow the simultaneous cut of both lines by a single event.

In other words if there is a fire to the main line (or alternate) and/or switching station the main or alternate power source should be adequately separated so that they can maintain power to the airport in the time it takes to put out the fire. Sort of like a fire rating for stairs in a building. You have multiple stairs each with a 1 hour rating. This redundancy allows emergency exits to occur and for fire fighters to arrive even if the fire starts in one of the fire rated stairs. You would never put those two stairs directly next to each other with no fire rated wall, etc....

Anyway, that's my layman's understanding of the possible design issue with the electrical switching system.

[daharris80]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ire/961529001/

The fire that knocked out Atlanta airport’s power for 11 hours Sunday erupted in a tunnel that housed both the main power lines and a backup supply, according to officials investigating the incident.

Again - my understanding is that the main power line and backup power lines should not be in the same tunnel.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Jetlanta

It is interesting that you have already determined that Delta, the most operationally-reliable major airline in the world, has failed to proactively plan for disruptive events such as this. First of all, it seems pretty clear that Delta had nothing to do with this. An investigation will determine exactly what happened, but it certainly had nothing to do with Delta.

As someone who works in this industry (not for Delta nor ATL), Delta's "reliance" on ATL is the core of its historic success. It is also the core of Atlanta's success over the decades. But in this industry, disruptions will happen. This one wasn't due to nature causes, but it's impact was similar. It was unfortunate for everyone involved. But 24 hours later Delta's operation was basically back on track. Given the complexities of airline/airport operations, that is practically a miracle.

But it isn't a miracle. It is a testament to exactly what you rail against. In fact, Delta's IROP (Irregular Operations) plan at ATL worked fantastically given the circumstances. Those of us in the industry are marveling at how quickly they got the operation back on track.

Here is the tradeoff. Either ATL is the busiest airport in the world and Delta operates the most successful hub in the world, or not. No manner of planning will EVER mitigate an airport completely losing power for 10 hours. The question is, how quickly is it mitigated and how quickly do you recover. Delta did a fantastic job here.

In comparison, look at the computer meltdown they had earlier in the year. That was a mess. Delta acknowledged as much and has subsequently invested $200M in new IT infrastructure to prevent such an occurrence again. If you were complaining about that situation, we'd be in more agreement. But you insinuation that a greedy company doesn't care about customers and neglected proper planning and even network strategy is bunk. Delta has proven to be the MOST operationally-reliable major airline in the world over the past many years precisely because it does all the things you imply it doesn't.

I get what you are trying to say and I appreciate the point you are trying to make. But as someone who has spent 25 years in this business, I'm going to suggest that you are off base here.

I appreciate your detailed response.

I guess I wasn't clear in my posts. I don't care about how profitable Delta. If this way of operating works for their financial statements, good for them. And it's also good for them that they're able to recover as quickly as they did.

My only point is, IMO, if Delta chooses to operate in a fashion that allows for zero disruption in their system (again, I don't care about the justification for doing so), they do share responsibility in exacerbating the situation.

[Jetlanta]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I appreciate your detailed response.

I guess I wasn't clear in my posts. I don't care about how profitable Delta. If this way of operating works for their financial statements, good for them. And it's also good for them that they're able to recover as quickly as they did.

My only point is, IMO, if Delta chooses to operate in a fashion that allows for zero disruption in their system (again, I don't care about the justification for doing so), they do share responsibility in exacerbating the situation.

What you are saying is that the airport should not operate at the capacity it is designed to operate at. You are blaming Delta for doing exactly what the facility was built to accommodate.

There isn’t an airport in the world that could operate through a total power loss. Whether it is Atlanta or Macon. If Delta operated the same number of flights at ATL as it operates at DTW a total power loss would have been just as bad a deal.

This was a major travel disruption for about 18 hours but nobody was injured and nobody died. They will learn from this (as will every other airport in the world) and move on. No need to disrupt ATL’s place in the aviation industry.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I appreciate your detailed response.

I guess I wasn't clear in my posts. I don't care about how profitable Delta. If this way of operating works for their financial statements, good for them. And it's also good for them that they're able to recover as quickly as they did.

My only point is, IMO, if Delta chooses to operate in a fashion that allows for zero disruption in their system (again, I don't care about the justification for doing so), they do share responsibility in exacerbating the situation.

S-17,

Say you are heading to work this morning and you are t-boned by a semi truck because the driver was tired from driving more hours than allowed (the driver was not employed by Amazon - in case they are reading). As a result, you incur $150K in medical expenses and you are out of work for 6 months.

If we applied your reasoning to my example, you would not be entitled to any compensation because you should be fiscally responsible for saving for unforeseen medical expenses and loss of income - whether it is a result of your fault or someone else. Just as you believe GA Power is not responsible for impacting Delta's income/profits during the outage; the truck driver would not be responsible for your income and medical expenses even if it was the truck drivers fault. Does this make sense???

In the real world - If one company causes a disruption to another company's business which results in a loss of income, they are entitled to be compensated for their loss. Regardless of how profitable the company that incurred the loss is.

Why you should agree with this
If GA Power (a for profit company) did not have to compensate Delta or any other company for loss as a result of their poor planning, bad system design and/or lack of infrastructure investment the problem would never improve and potentially escalate in the future. Delta's traffic management (even if it is a problem) should not enter the equation when GA Power clearly was at fault.

[skyscraperpage17]

I agree that GA Power is at fault for the power outage. But it's not just about the power outage for me, but also how things were managed in the wake of the outage as well as the severity of the situation following the power outage. Delta, with their way of operating, worsens the severity of these events when they happen and should be held responsible for it IMO.

Like I said, I understand why some disagree with my view, but I still stand by it.

[Jetlanta]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I agree that GA Power is at fault for the power outage. But it's not just about the power outage for me, but also how things were managed in the wake of the outage as well as the severity of the situation following the power outage. Delta, with their way of operating, worsens the severity of these events when they happen and should be held responsible for it IMO.

Like I said, I understand why some disagree with my view, but I still stand by it.

But what is "their way of operating"? That is what confuses me. Delta has operated more or less the same number of daily flights at ATL for at least 20 years (about 1000 per day). They operate that schedule with pretty much the highest degree of reliability of any airline at any major hub in the world. Upwards of 90% of flights arrive on-time. It is truly a remarkable operation that is admired across the industry.

Does having a big operation mean more passengers are inconvenienced when something goes wrong? Absolutely, But that operation allows 105 million passengers per year to get to their destination of choice safely and conveniently. ATL literally is the most efficient and productive piece of air transportation infrastructure in the world. Your suggestion, it seems, is to degrade that in order to accommodate the potential for a freak half day disruption that has only happened once in the history of the airport.

If you are going to argue that weather events prove the same point, I'd point out that weather is the natural enemy of aviation and ATL is one of the least disrupted major airports in North America in terms of weather. If weather disruptions concern you, I'd suggest Amtrak.

ATL is the crown jewel of the Georgia economy. Whether there are 300,000 people impacted on one day or 150,000, what does it matter? Everything was back to normal the next day and ATL continues to be the engine that powers the Georgia economy.

I realize that I'm not going change your opinion on this. But I hope you at least consider that you are not knowledgeable on this subject and that you've offered no solution other than just cutting back operations. And that serves no one.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Jetlanta

But what is "their way of operating"? That is what confuses me. Delta has operated more or less the same number of daily flights at ATL for at least 20 years (about 1000 per day). They operate that schedule with pretty much the highest degree of reliability of any airline at any major hub in the world. Upwards of 90% of flights arrive on-time. It is truly a remarkable operation that is admired across the industry.

Does having a big operation mean more passengers are inconvenienced when something goes wrong? Absolutely, But that operation allows 105 million passengers per year to get to their destination of choice safely and conveniently. ATL literally is the most efficient and productive piece of air transportation infrastructure in the world. Your suggestion, it seems, is to degrade that in order to accommodate the potential for a freak half day disruption that has only happened once in the history of the airport.

If you are going to argue that weather events prove the same point, I'd point out that weather is the natural enemy of aviation and ATL is one of the least disrupted major airports in North America in terms of weather. If weather disruptions concern you, I'd suggest Amtrak.

ATL is the crown jewel of the Georgia economy. Whether there are 300,000 people impacted on one day or 150,000, what does it matter? Everything was back to normal the next day and ATL continues to be the engine that powers the Georgia economy.

I realize that I'm not going change your opinion on this. But I hope you at least consider that you are not knowledgeable on this subject and that you've offered no solution other than just cutting back operations. And that serves no one.

I consider myself an open-mind person and I'm always willing to hear all sides of an issue. What I don't understand with this particular subject are the overly negative reactions to what I think is a reasonable opinion.

I live in a part of the Atlanta Metro area that is especially dependent on Delta's success, so my comments aren't an indictment against them. Just as well, my comments should not be taken as an indictment on the city of Atlanta. The entire metro area depends on the success of the city and the last thing I want to see happen is for it to fail.

That being said, I guess what I'm getting at is all I've heard in response to my criticism that Delta is responsible for exacerbating the situation are people trying to justify why they're doing it. What I don't get it (as no one has explained) is how does any justification alleviate their responsibility in exacerbating the situation?

BTW, I can't speak on the exact number of Delta's flight distribution today in comparison to 20 years ago, but what I do know is that in that same span of time, Delta has significantly consolidated their flight operations by completely shuttering or significantly shrinking their other major hubs across the country (much more so than the other big airlines). These flights that once were going to now shrunken or shuttered hubs had to go somewhere (ATL).

[1lifealex]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I consider myself an open-mind person and I'm always willing to hear all sides of an issue. What I don't understand with this particular subject are the overly negative reactions to what I think is a reasonable opinion.

I live in a part of the Atlanta Metro area that is especially dependent on Delta's success, so my comments aren't an indictment against them. Just as well, my comments should not be taken as an indictment on the city of Atlanta. The entire metro area depends on the success of the city and the last thing I want to see happen is for it to fail.

That being said, I guess what I'm getting at is all I've heard in response to my criticism that Delta is responsible for exacerbating the situation are people trying to justify why they're doing it. What I don't get it (as no one has explained) is how does any justification alleviate their responsibility in exacerbating the situation?

BTW, I can't speak on the exact number of Delta's flight distribution today in comparison to 20 years ago, but what I do know is that in that same span of time, Delta has significantly consolidated their flight operations by completely shuttering or significantly shrinking their other major hubs across the country (much more so than the other big airlines). These flights that once were going to now shrunken or shuttered hubs had to go somewhere (ATL).

I personally think it makes a lot of sense for Dealta to have as many flights in and out of Atlanta simply because of its location and it's time zone the vast majority of its domestic flights are from the southeast plus don't forget Delta's Hub in Atlanta got so big because of the merger with Eastern Airlines back in the 90s