I believe two things.

First, the airlines deserve to be skewered for a variety of reasons. Even before 9/11 there was a certain decline in service, and now added security (especially after the London attacks that brought us the “3-2-1” rules for liquids in carry-ons) has us stressed just about the process of going to the airport, much less getting on the plane.

Second, the reasons most people choose to gripe about airlines are unconsidered and counterproductive. The more time we spend griping about dumb things the less we have to gripe about things that matter.
For instance, is it really so hard to understand why we get the mantra, “In preparation for landing, please ensure your seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright position?” If something happens during landing (which is when 45% of all airplane accidents occur), you’ll want to leave the plane in a hurry. You won’t particularly want your tray table blocking your exit, and I certainly don’t want your reclined seat blocking mine.

And what’s the deal with airline food? We know by now (thanks to Science) that our sense of taste is diminished at high altitudes. So why task the airline with cooking food in advance to prepare in tiny airplane galleys for hundreds of people at once? Of course it won’t end well for anybody! Either go without food for a few hours – a reasonable request between mealtimes – or buy something at the airport before leaving. The “Street Pricing Policy” at Logan and other airports nationwide even dictates that you won’t overpay for food at the airport.

So what should we be griping about, if not classic bits of comedian fodder? The airlines’ only real responsibility: getting us to our destinations on time.

We cannot reasonably demand perfection, of course. Too many variables impact flight schedules. Passengers on a flight from Dulles to Miami might insist weather is no factor when it’s beautiful and sunny along the entire coast, until they reflect that the plane they’re waiting for started its day in San Francisco, where it’s raining and windy. And is there anybody aboard who, upon learning of a mechanical failure, would say, “Eh. Let’s go anyway.”

Instead of pushing for perfection of scheduling, the airlines should be prepared to work around delays. In particular, when that poor San Francisco flight gets delayed all the way across the country, the passengers waiting for the plane in Dulles shouldn’t be affected. Surely some airplane is available in Dulles; let them board that one. Put the people from that plane on whichever one is ready next. Then when the San Francisco plane shows up (eventually) you’ll be caught up, possibly without introducing any extra delays at all.

Of course, this only works with interchangeable aircraft. We can’t take 285 passengers from a Boeing 777 and put them on a 114-seat Boeing 737. For many airlines, though, this is a reasonable restriction. Ted (the United Airlines spinoff) operates every flight on an Airbus A320, for example. Other airlines use only two or three types of equipment.

Ground crews shouldn’t be heavily impacted by such a policy. The decision to use a certain aircraft would have to be made somewhat in advance, giving crews enough time to get luggage and fuel aboard normally. Catering won’t be affected at all, since there should be no catering in the first place.

The real burden of this system would fall to passengers. Instead of going straight to a single gate, we’d have to check, say, an hour before departure to see which gate has our flight. This is similar to how trains leave from Penn Station in New York. You have no idea which track will host your train until it arrives and it’s time to board. True, this won’t work in all airport configurations (e.g., some airports have small clusters of gates, and going between clusters requires leaving the sterile area). At many airports it would still work fine.

And of course this isn’t a flawless system. It’s a “spherical chickens in a vacuum” solution to suppose we can just mix and match flights freely. Sometimes the crew from one flight is needed for another; sometimes the physical plane needs to end up in a certain city for maintenance. But this is the era of computer modeling. Are we really saying there’s nothing we can do?