By all accounts, the Federal Aviation Administration’s "tarmac rule" has dramatically reduced the number of passengers who are stuck inside an aircraft on the ground for three hours or more.

Violations of the rule, which went into effect last April, can cost airlines $27,500 per passenger, or $2.75 million for a planeload of 100 people going nowhere fast. In fact, there were just three cases nationwide of three-hour tarmac delays in December — compared with 34 the previous December, according to the federal Department of Transportation, the FAA’s parent agency.

But critics say an unintended consequence of the rule is becoming apparent and spoiling travel plans for a far greater number of would-be fliers.

A Star-Ledger analysis of federal DOT figures reveals airlines are simply canceling more flights, presumably to avoid idling on the tarmac and exposing themselves to the whopping fines. In fact, the cancellation rate at the nation's major airports surged 24 percent during the eight months after the rule went into effect.

There is no breakdown by airport, and there was a noticeable spike in cancellations during the wicked December weather. But over the course of the eight-month period, 7,095 more flights were ditched.

Put another way: Nearly 900 more flights a month are being scrubbed.

"They’ve exchanged inconvenience for a relatively few number of people for an inconvenience for a tremendous number of people," said David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, a passengers advocacy group.

Jennifer Sutherland, 46, a gymnastics coach and Cedar Grove native now living in Clarksville, Ohio, was among the thousands of air travelers whose flights were canceled at Newark Liberty International Airport after the Dec. 26 blizzard. Sutherland has no way of knowing if the tarmac rule came into play in her case, but she was angry that airlines could be canceling flights as an easy, sure way to eliminate their risk of penalties.

"The airlines are saving the massive fines from the tarmac rule and at the same time forcing passengers into the impossible situation of waiting days or weeks to re-book or simply purchase another ticket," she said.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:



• N.J. senator organizes group against new commercial flight patterns

• N.J. Sen. Kevin O'Toole fights FAA plan to redirect planes over northern N.J.

• N.J. senator enlists support against FAA plan to route JFK airport flights over Garden State

• FAA redesign of N.J., N.Y. airspace will send hundreds more flights over N.J.

• FAA should re-examine flight caps to help curb delays at N.J., N.Y. airports, U.S. report says

In her case, Sutherland was scheduled to return home Dec. 27, but her Continental flight was canceled. She was unable to re-book her flight with the airline online or by phone and wound up using an online booking broker four days later to buy a one-way ticket that cost her twice what she paid for her round-trip fare.

"As frustrated passengers had to return home to work and family, how many were forced, like me, to simply buy a new ticket at an inflated price?" Sutherland asked.

According to flight data the federal DOT compiled and published monthly on its website, airconsumer.dot.gov, there were 39,312 cancellations of 2,743,522 scheduled flights from May through December 2010, the period spanning the first full month the rule was in effect through the end of the year. That means 1.43 percent of all scheduled flights were canceled. The same period in 2009 saw a cancellation rate of 1.15 percent — 32,217 of 2,796,436 scheduled flights.

There are no provisions in the tarmac rule preventing airlines from canceling flights to avoid risking a fine, and many fliers say they would prefer a flight was canceled than risk a tarmac ordeal. Refunds or new flights are offered to passengers whose flights are canceled — depending on availability, that is, as many fliers learned during this winter’s snowstorms.

But cancellations can be a hardship on travelers who have somewhere to be at a certain time, and they can force fliers to spend money on taxis, hotels, meals and other expenses while awaiting a new flight. The scramble for new flights can be maddening at smaller airports or destinations that are only served by a single carrier.

"Cancellations are in many ways the worst result for passengers because they don’t get to their destination or they don’t get back home and are left stranded," Stempler said. "In the old days, the airlines would keep operating until they can’t even operate anymore. Now they make these advance cancellations and not even risk these fines."

The tarmac rule, imposed by the FAA following several high-profile horror stories involving passengers stranded for hours without food, water or clean lavatories, stands to become federal law as part of the current fiscal 2012 FAA reauthorization bill pending in Congress. Once that happens, Stempler said, it would require another act of Congress to repeal the provision, rather than an administrative decision.

The FAA declined to comment on the impact of the tarmac rule, deferring to its parent agency. A DOT spokesman, Bill Mosley, said there simply was not enough data to conclude the rule had a significant impact on cancellations.

"With the eight months of data that we have available, we have seen no real increase in cancellations due to the three-hour tarmac delay rule," Mosley said.

The data does not take into account variables like weather, the most common factor in cancellations. For example, some 1,620 flights were canceled at Newark Liberty alone during a two-day period following the blizzard that struck Dec. 26.

Putting aside the December figures, the national cancellation rate rose 9 percent during the May-November period in 2010, compared with a year earlier, for 3,675 more canceled flights.

Megan McCarthy, a spokeswoman for United Continental Holdings, said other reasons for cancellations include lack of crew availability and technical problems with aircraft. How far in advance the decision to cancel is made ranges from several days, in the event of a storm forecast, to immediately before scheduled or delayed departure time, in the case of personnel or technical problems.

Industry officials acknowledge airlines have been more aggressive in canceling flights since the tarmac rule went into effect. But, they say, advance cancellations are part of an overall scheme to improve customer service, not only by reducing tarmac delays, but also by letting passengers avoid a potentially fruitless trip to the airport for a flight that might never get off the ground.

Some airlines have begun waiving re-booking fees in advance of specific dates when cancellations appear likely. Airlines say they also post flight information online and notify passengers of cancellations by phone or e-mail, though many fliers complained during this winter’s snowstorms they were not notified and had to go to the airport for information.

Jean Medina, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, the industry’s main lobbying group, acknowledged "the tarmac rule may be a consideration," in deciding whether to cancel a flight, but it’s not the only reason.

"Airlines are becoming much more proactive in canceling flights to insure that they’re not inconveniencing customers," Medina said.