Finally - Airlines are held responsible

[SkyHog]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/21/airline.delay.tarmac.ruling/index.html

A Department of Transportation rule announced Monday prohibits U.S. aircraft on domestic routes from remaining on a tarmac for more than three hours with passengers aboard.

Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed to say "After 30 minutes, if the Airline has reason to believe the time will exceed 3 hours, they must return."

I bet, now that its codified, the airlines will suddenly "find a way" to get those passengers off the plane (when there was "no way" to do it before).

 

[SkyHog]

A better article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/BusinessTraveler/dot-imposes-limits-airport-delays/story?id=9390492

 

[Trapper John]

What's the penalty if they don't?


Trapper John

 

[steingar]

What's the penalty if they don't?


Trapper John

Fines probably. Whether they continue to do it or not depends on how much they'll have to pay in penalties.

 

[Areeda]

According to the Washington times:

Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for failing to follow the new rule, which could take effect in 120 days.

and the NY Times says:

From January to June this year, 613 planes were delayed on tarmacs for more than three hours, their passengers kept on board.

 

[wpierce]

Blanket statements are sometimes too easy to make. I've been on a couple of flights that were held up on the tarmac for many hours. I've witnessed everyone taking it as best they could until some jerkwad started to excessively complain which then in turn gets those around him complaining and it's a vicious circle that expands from there.

The first flight was at Charlotte and it was weather related, once we finally started moving in the conga line we had to taxi back to get de-iced again, no complaints from me, if the guys up front didn't like what they saw on the wings or nose, I have no problem going back for some more juice. In this case I would bet there was no place to park at the gates to de-plane if they wanted to.

The next experience was at LaGuardia and it was TS related to the West, we were on the ground for an excess of 3 hours. Planes still landing but no one was taking off unless they were going East. Not too many flights depart for the East from LGA. Definitely no way to park at a gate, Pilots last leg before he retired. I know HE didn't want to be there but he had no choice, we were taxiing all over the place we ended up over where Trumps plane sets. Aircraft on every taxi way and intersection. It was a mess. That was the flight with the loud mouth, he was setting in the back of the plane so you know he wasn't a "seasoned" air traveler. (After posting this and thinking about it, most of the folks got ****ed when they were told something to the effect of if you're hungry you can BUY a snack box but there wasn't enough to go around for everyone, they should have offered to pass the snack boxes around and the airline swallow the loss of revenue on the snack boxes...)

Too many times these guys are given a clearance time and if the folks aren't already on the plane, fah-get-about-it, it ain't going to happen. I'd rather set on the plane where we might get to go, then in the terminal that just keeps getting fuller and fuller with no place to go and bad attitudes everywhere you turn, and NO Customer Service.

Just my opinion, ymmv.

 

[SkyHog]

Blanket statements are sometimes too easy to make. I've been on a couple of flights that were held up on the tarmac for many hours. I've witnessed everyone taking it as best they could until some jerkwad started to excessively complain which then in turn gets those around him complaining and it's a vicious circle that expands from there.

The first flight was at Charlotte and it was weather related, once we finally started moving in the conga line we had to taxi back to get de-iced again, no complaints from me, if the guys up front didn't like what they saw on the wings or nose, I have no problem going back for some more juice. In this case I would bet there was no place to park at the gates to de-plane if they wanted to.

The next experience was at LaGuardia and it was TS related to the West, we were on the ground for an excess of 3 hours. Planes still landing but no one was taking off unless they were going East. Not too many flights depart for the East from LGA. Definitely no way to park at a gate, Pilots last leg before he retired. I know HE didn't want to be there but he had no choice, we were taxiing all over the place we ended up over where Trumps plane sets. Aircraft on every taxi way and intersection. It was a mess. That was the flight with the loud mouth, he was setting in the back of the plane so you know he wasn't a "seasoned" air traveler.

Too many times these guys are given a clearance time and if the folks aren't already on the plane, fah-get-about-it, it ain't going to happen. I'd rather set on the plane where we might get to go, then in the terminal that just keeps getting fuller and fuller with no place to go and bad attitudes everywhere you turn, and NO Customer Service.

Just my opinion, ymmv.

The problem is that you are buying into the "no place to deplane" scenario the airlines are selling. They have stairs....there's a tarmac....I'd rather be able to walk around for a bit in worst case scenario, than listen to some mean, ugly flight attendant yell at an old lady because she needs to use the restroom while we sit there for 5 hours.

The airlines make it suck. The flight attendants make it worse. The lying from the front office makes it sickening. The airlines make it unacceptable with the lies of "We simply don't have the ability to deplane!"

And then the pilots chiming in with "We don't want to be there either" is the icing. They're paid from push back....of course they'd like to get some more hours....its the holiday season.

 

[Everskyward]

Blanket statements are sometimes too easy to make.

+1. It would suck if you were at 2 + 59 and number one for takeoff and you went back to the gate. You would probably have to taxi down the runway to get there too...

 

[wabower]

I think an element of "honesty in reporting" has been injected into the equation as a result of internet-based flight tracking programs. Prior to their wide-spread use, the airlines were more prone to "nickel and dime" the annuouncement and timing of expected delays especially for pax waiting in the terminal, by "estimating" the departure delay at a much lower value than they knew it would be.

Now it's harder for them to project a 15-minute delay for a departure from Ft. Myers when you can see on your iphone that the inbound has yet to leave Chicago.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am waiting for the unintended consequences to start rolling in from this. I guarantee there will be some.

 

[SkyHog]

I am waiting for the unintended consequences to start rolling in from this. I guarantee there will be some.

I'm thinking it will be mostly mitigated by choosing an unreasonable number like 3 hours instead of a more reasonable 90 minutes...

If the airlines can't get people in the air or to the terminal within 3 hours, they don't need to be offering tickets...

 

[Steve]

I had this very discussion with a gate agent a couple of months ago. He was updating the scrolling marquee with what "HQ" was telling him while at the same time tracking the flight status on his local terminal. There was quite a disparity between the two.

It will be interesting to see who makes the call on the first enforcement, pilot, dispatch, atc, irate pax...

I, for one, would prefer the options being stuck in terminal gives me vs. those avalable on the taxiway. FWIW, an open gate is not required to deplane. Airports will have to accomodate that fact in light of the new reg or face similar backlash from the public.

I think an element of "honesty in reporting" has been injected into the equation as a result of internet-based flight tracking programs. Prior to their wide-spread use, the airlines were more prone to "nickel and dime" the annuouncement and timing of expected delays especially for pax waiting in the terminal, by "estimating" the departure delay at a much lower value than they knew it would be.

Now it's harder for them to project a 15-minute delay for a departure from Ft. Myers when you can see on your iphone that the inbound has yet to leave Chicago.

 

[inav8r]

If the airlines can't get people in the air or to the terminal within 3 hours, they don't need to be offering tickets...

(Not asking Nick, but everyone in general) What's the alternative, they start canceling flights?

 

[SkyHog]

(Not asking Nick, but everyone in general) What's the alternative, they start canceling flights?

They get more realistic with boarding times.

"Oh, looks like there's a ground stop going on. We probably shouldn't board the plane to get in the line of 200 planes in front of us, only to wait until the ground stop is lifted..."

 

[inav8r]

"Oh, looks like there's a ground stop going on. We probably shouldn't board the plane to get in the line of 200 planes in front of us, only to wait until the ground stop is lifted..."

They probably don't want to juggle the planes sitting at the gates with the room they need to make for arriving planes....

 

[flyersfan31]

It feels good to bash the airlines on this, but it is so much more complex than "Let them off the plane."

I think the airlines are at the wrong end of the goose on this one - they are left holding the bag for a whole lot of issues outside of their control. The problem really starts with the FAA, and works its way down, and the flight crew is the one who ends up having to deal with the ****.

That's not to say that airline personnel do a great job of PR and damage control. They usually don't. But this is not going to solve the problem.

 

[Everskyward]

"Oh, looks like there's a ground stop going on. We probably shouldn't board the plane to get in the line of 200 planes in front of us, only to wait until the ground stop is lifted..."

What makes you think they do that?

Not too I was standing at the gate waiting to board when a call came in about a ground stop. They stopped boarding right away at the request of the captain. I could hear him on the phone. Luckily the ground stop was only about 30 min so they resumed boarding pretty quickly.

 

[SCCutler]

I am waiting for the unintended consequences to start rolling in from this. I guarantee there will be some.

Inevitable.

Just you wait until some planeload of folks is force-deplaned because of the rule, and the cockpit crew times-out as a result. Oh, the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth you'll hear then!

Mix in (for fun) the flight having diverted because of pilot's discretion on a safety-related weather call - and some passenger sees that another plane, maybe another carrier, maybe not, made it in (better equipment, first guy had increased mins for IOE, whatever). Maybe someone on the diverted plane had a big deal cooking, "would have made a couple hundred million if that plane had not diverted and canceled."

Be careful the unintended consequences of new rules.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Be careful the unintended consequences of new rules.

Yes, BUT...

This is a classic case of "You fix the problem, or we'll fix it for you." The airlines have a problem, they have not offered up any reasonable solutions, and they have continued to ignore the problem. Now, they (and we) will have to live with those unintended consequences.

I still think that overall, it's an improvement.

 

[Everskyward]

The airlines have a problem, they have not offered up any reasonable solutions, and they have continued to ignore the problem. Now, they (and we) will have to live with those unintended consequences.

But the airlines are not always the root of the problem. Sometime it is ATC. Many times you can't even get a ballpark estimate for a takeoff time once you are in line. Then if something unforseen happen to screw up the traffic flow all bets are off.

 

[SkyHog]

Yes, BUT...

This is a classic case of "You fix the problem, or we'll fix it for you." The airlines have a problem, they have not offered up any reasonable solutions, and they have continued to ignore the problem. Now, they (and we) will have to live with those unintended consequences.

I still think that overall, it's an improvement.

This is the key. They've had at least 10 years (if not longer) of people threatening them with this regulation....but instead we heard "You just don't get it" and lies of "We can't deplane, its not possible."

Well, now, after practically pleading with them to do SOMETHING to fix the problem, we had to take action. In the long run, everyone will benefit.

 

[SkyHog]

But the airlines are not always the root of the problem. Sometime it is ATC. Many times you can't even get a ballpark estimate for a takeoff time once you are in line. Then if something unforseen happen to screw up the traffic flow all bets are off.

Let me ask you this, Mari. As a 135 operator, you deal with a lot of the same things. What would you and your organization do if you boarded, taxied to a holding point, and 7 hours later, you still sat there waiting, and the chairloo you have started to overflow because the people on board couldn't hold it any longer? Would you tell them "I'm sorry, we can't return to the FBO, we're number 100 for takeoff, and we'll lose that spot!"?

Or would you return to the comfort of the FBO and find an alternate plan?

 

[Everskyward]

Let me ask you this, Mari. As a 135 operator, you deal with a lot of the same things. What would you and your organization do if you boarded, taxied to a holding point, and 7 hours later, you still sat there waiting, and the chairloo you have started to overflow because the people on board couldn't hold it any longer? Would you tell them "I'm sorry, we can't return to the FBO, we're number 100 for takeoff, and we'll lose that spot!"?

Or would you return to the comfort of the FBO and find an alternate plan?

We have a lot more options, though. We can go back to the FBO without waiting for a gate. We have integral stairs. We also can ask the passengers what they want to do. They are sitting right there, after all.

 

[flyersfan31]

Let me ask you this, Mari. As a 135 operator, you deal with a lot of the same things. What would you and your organization do if you boarded, taxied to a holding point, and 7 hours later, you still sat there waiting, and the chairloo you have started to overflow because the people on board couldn't hold it any longer? Would you tell them "I'm sorry, we can't return to the FBO, we're number 100 for takeoff, and we'll lose that spot!"?

Or would you return to the comfort of the FBO and find an alternate plan?

One or two incidents is not grounds to upend the system. You taxi out. Ground stop hits. Meantime, your gate gets filled. Now what? Taxi back, find airstairs, run the customers inside? Better round up security for that. Meanwhile, what happens when the groundstop is lifted - run the pax back out and up the airstair? What do you do with the luggage of the folks who call it a night? Leave it on the plane? Can't do that - TSA regs.

The legislators assume the airlines WANT this to happen, or so it seems. It strikes me that these situations are the LAST thing the airlines want. Now, I'm not terribly impressed with airline customer service in general, but that's more from an info perspective. In this case, i just think it's taking a bad situation and doing nothing but potentially making it worse. The airlines will continue to be left holding the bag, with customers po'd at them instead of the legislators.

 

[Ghery]

there's a tarmac...

??? Where's that? Is that some place on an airport that I can't find? The media seems to think there's a place on the airport called the tarmac, but I can't find it. And, while it will support our planes, I can think of a few airliners that would sink into that paving material on a hot day.

Ramps, taxiways, runways - I can find those. Tarmacs?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But the airlines are not always the root of the problem. Sometime it is ATC. Many times you can't even get a ballpark estimate for a takeoff time once you are in line.

But by the time 3 hours hits, it's not ATC's fault any more. If there are delays that are that bad, don't board the plane - Or find a spot for it.

One or two incidents is not grounds to upend the system. You taxi out. Ground stop hits. Meantime, your gate gets filled. Now what? Taxi back, find airstairs, run the customers inside? Better round up security for that. Meanwhile, what happens when the groundstop is lifted - run the pax back out and up the airstair? What do you do with the luggage of the folks who call it a night? Leave it on the plane? Can't do that - TSA regs.

Andrew, these are problems that are easily solvable. The airlines simply chose not to solve them. The airplanes sitting at the gates aren't full of people. If they are, de-board or depart. Otherwise, it's not that hard to hook up a tug to the airplane and push it somewhere else, and allow the stranded pax back in the gate. Or use airstairs - I really don't care. Plus, luggage for individual pax is pulled off airplanes all the time - They can do it.

The bottom line is that these problems are easily fixed, and the airlines CHOSE not to fix them. We may find problems with this new reg, and we can find solutions to those problems too. The airlines sticking their heads in the sand is not a solution.

 

[Everskyward]

If there are delays that are that bad, don't board the plane

I think the thing is that you don't know it's going to be a 3 hour delay before you board.

Or find a spot for it.

That too is easier said than done.

Andrew, these are problems that are easily solvable. The airlines simply chose not to solve them.

The problems might be solvable but I don't think they are easily solvable. That's not to say that the airlines shouldn't try to do something but I don't think the rule is going to help and is going to create unintended consequences if you think just for a minute about the logistical problems.

The airplanes sitting at the gates aren't full of people. If they are, de-board or depart.

Depart to where? I thought there were departure delays.

Otherwise, it's not that hard to hook up a tug to the airplane and push it somewhere else, and allow the stranded pax back in the gate.

Push it to where? Out in the area where airplanes taxi?

Or use airstairs - I really don't care.

Again, this is just another "do something, anything" answer without thinking about where the airstairs are going to come from or where you are going to park the airplane to do this.

Plus, luggage for individual pax is pulled off airplanes all the time - They can do it.

I flew a group of people whose flight had been delayed overnight and they were not able to access their baggage. They chartered our airplane to fly them to Florida that evening but their baggage wasn't going to arrive until the next morning on the airline flight that was delayed. Needless to say they weren't pleased about that.

The bottom line is that these problems are easily fixed, and the airlines CHOSE not to fix them. We may find problems with this new reg, and we can find solutions to those problems too. The airlines sticking their heads in the sand is not a solution.

I agree that some of these problems need to be fixed but I don't think this new rule is going to help. There will be many unintended consequences. I think there are going to be a lot of unhappy people who, instead of waiting on a plane for 3 hours are going to be waiting overnight for their flight... without their luggage. I can also see a problem when some airplane, or many airplanes decide they are going to turn around and they are in the middle of a line on the taxiway with nowhere to go.

 

[Clark1961]

We have integral stairs.

Are those finite, semi-infinite, or infinite integral stairs?

Sorry, math humor. I've been staring at squiggly lines for much too long today.

 

[maddog52]

+1. It would suck if you were at 2 + 59 and number one for takeoff and you went back to the gate. You would probably have to taxi down the runway to get there too...

I predict that is exactly what will happen. Now the delayed flight has to head back to the gate with enough time to ensure they don't incur a six figure fine. The passengers deplane for whatever the required time is, they reboard and the aircraft gets back in line for another hour or two. That is if the crew doesn't run out of duty time back at the gate, or they miss the curfew at the destination and have to cancel the flight. I predict his rule will cause much more hassle for travelers than it will prevent.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the thing is that you don't know it's going to be a 3 hour delay before you board.

If it's an ATC problem as you said, you'd at least have a clue, right? Maybe if you KNOW it's going to be at least a 2-hour delay, you don't board. Otherwise, you do.

That too is easier said than done.

Most things are - The problem is that the airlines have not even attempted to get anything done.

The problems might be solvable but I don't think they are easily solvable. That's not to say that the airlines shouldn't try to do something but I don't think the rule is going to help and is going to create unintended consequences if you think just for a minute about the logistical problems.

Depart to where? I thought there were departure delays.

I meant "depart" as in, leave the gate and get in line. There's no reason that an airplane has to be taking up a gate unless it's being actively used for boarding or de-boarding.

Push it to where? Out in the area where airplanes taxi?

That will vary by airport, obviously. Some places will be able to handle it easier than others...

Again, this is just another "do something, anything" answer without thinking about where the airstairs are going to come from or where you are going to park the airplane to do this.

I think this is a "get off your butts and solve the problems" answer. The airlines and airports will need to find ways to address the issue - And I really think that if they had been proactive and attempted to do something productive to solve the problem that this rule would never have come into effect. Rather than even attempt to solve any of these issues, the airlines simply paid their lobbyists to fight the passengers' rights legislation. ATA Fail.

 

[Areeda]

I am blessed in not having to have flown commercial in a few years now although my wife is trying to stop this lucky streak.

What bothers me are the stories of being stuck on the ground without working toilets, let alone food or water for 6 hours and more. Thank God, I've never been subjected to it.

I gotta go with the group that says this is better than the old way. I also think it's not perfect.

Joe

 

[wabower]

Let's put it in perspective and assume that the northeast has some weather problems. Some flights are operating but things are starting to stagnate. You're sitting in the terminal at LGA ready to board your AA MD-80 to Dallas, and at the same time I'm sitting in the FBO at TEB (just across town) hoping to get Cuban's G-V back to Dallas in time for tonights Mav's game. If my airplane isn't loaded up and in line at TEB, I've got no chance to get out, the exact same problem your crew has if you're sitting at LGA. So we all get in line, shut one down and wait our turn.

A big cold front has sagged down and and cut off all the departures to the west and north, but there's a chance to get out down the Jersey coast and head west if we can just get somewhere south of Philly. The front has stopped moving for now, and we all think we might make good our escape if we can get through the hole. A few inbounds are still getting in from the south, but the hole is closing.

We now have all the airline flights from Boston, the three NYC airports and all the GA airports in the region trying to squeeze out through a hole that's there now but may be closing (or an occasional hole may open up in the existing line) without much notice over the next few hours. Every so often the #1 gets to go and we all move up one spot, then sit there again.

Whose fault is that? Is it worth boarding with the knowledge that it's an iffy deal at best? How long do you want to sit there? Once we're in the plane, we're toast if we go back to the gate (assuming one is available) and let everybody pee and call mom. How long does it take to reboard? Are gate agents available? Does everybody want to go? How do we get their bags off? Who is available to service the galley and lav's?

I understand that black and white mentalities struggle with the daily challenges of an all-grey world, but this deal is a lot more complicated than the "gotcha" of setting a time limit and thinking that is a solution to the problem. Celebrate if you want, but I'm not sure what we won.

 

[timwinters]

I don't know if anyone could keep me in a non-moving plane for 3+ hours. I'd probably wind up in prison. Quite seriously.

 

[gismo]

They get more realistic with boarding times.

"Oh, looks like there's a ground stop going on. We probably shouldn't board the plane to get in the line of 200 planes in front of us, only to wait until the ground stop is lifted..."

I was under the impression that most of the passenger abuse situations occurred after landing rather than before takeoff. I also think that the rule should simply require the airline to offer the option of deplaning (and subsequent potential for missing the flight if a departure becomes feasible) if the time limit is exceeded before takeoff. I think that if I'd been sitting on a plane for 2.5 hours and there was a good chance of departing within the next hour I'd probably want to stick it out. OTOH, if a plane lands at the end of a 3 hour flight and is then held on the ground for even another 2 hours I think the airline should be forced to allow the pax to deplane or suffer serious consequences.

 

[wabower]

Your choice, pal. Go quietly and we'll just use the wrist-ties. Make it tough on us and it's full cuffs and shackles.

What do you do on I-35 when you're trapped in a blizzard at mile marker 93 due to a semi accident blocking all four lanes?

I don't know if anyone could keep me in a non-moving plane for 3+ hours. I'd probably wind up in prison. Quite seriously.

 

[maddog52]

But by the time 3 hours hits, it's not ATC's fault any more. If there are delays that are that bad, don't board the plane - Or find a spot for it.

The bottom line is that these problems are easily fixed, and the airlines CHOSE not to fix them. We may find problems with this new reg, and we can find solutions to those problems too. The airlines sticking their heads in the sand is not a solution.

Easily fixed by building more airports, paving more taxiways, installing more gates, building aircraft that can fly through any weather etc etc. You are grossly underestimating the complexity of the system. I know, your gonna say I'm using the "You just don't get it" defense, but until you've seen first hand everything that goes into a flight and all that can go wrong with it calling it "easily fixed" is flat wrong.

Despite popular misconception there are not an infinite number of taxiways, gates, airstairs, airways, departure routes etc at the disposal of the airlines. If there was, you'd be paying a lot more for a ticket! And guess what, w

And beleive it or not, Mother Nature doesn't always follow the experts predictions.

The number of flights experienceing gross delays is exceedingly small but make the headlines simply because they are so rare. And guess what, these types of delays already cost the airlines large sums of money. They are actively trying to prevent this loss and aren't "just sticking sicking their heads in the sand". Another "feel good", worthless, knee-jerk rule is not the solution either.

 

[timwinters]

What do you do on I-35 when you're trapped in a blizzard at mile marker 93 due to a semi accident blocking all four lanes?

I remain pretty calm because in that case it's not a human moron who is responsible for wasting my time and showing complete disregard for it. It's mother nature.

But, with that said, I could never live in ATL, HOU, DAL, LA, etc...and hate even coming within 100 miles of those towns much less driving in them.

 

[Speed]

And then the pilots chiming in with "We don't want to be there either" is the icing. They're paid from push back....of course they'd like to get some more hours....its the holiday season.

Actually, no (at least not as a blanket statement). The regional I flew for paid scheduled time or actual, whichever is less. This can really bite crews in the butt, as if you incur a couple of hours of deicing delays on leg one, a holding delay of an hour on leg 5, and this bumps you up so you would exceed 8 hours on leg 6 they remove you from that flight. You do not get paid for the extra hours that caused you to have a 8 in 24 violation, nor do you get paid for the flight you got pulled off of.

Or, here's another one. I checked in, boarded the flight, etc. We sat on the de-ice pad for over 3 hours. Dispatch then canceled the flight as weather was declining rapidly, so back to the gate. In all a long nasty day and I got paid ZERO because the airplane never left the ground. OTOH, if I had called in sick prior to this flight like I had been contemplating, I would have been paid full credit. Trust me, we'd rather not be there!

As a side note, the actual or less pay means if you push 15 late, there is no incentive to make up the time enroute or take a shortcut as if you do, you get paid the shorter time...

 

[wabower]

I think that you'll find most of the big airline snarls are weather related as well. And you're right, big towns aren't much fun to live in. Unless you want to buy something or do something.

I remain pretty calm because in that case it's not a human moron who is responsible for wasting my time and showing complete disregard for it. It's mother nature.

But, with that said, I could never live in ATL, HOU, DAL, LA, etc...and hate even coming within 100 miles of those towns much less driving in them.

 

[SkyHog]

Depart to where? I thought there were departure delays.

If there's departure delays, why are they even boarding?