EL AL Matmid - Hundreds of El Al passengers spent 7 hours on tarmac in U.S.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1138397.html

disgusting :(

According to this article, does this mean ELAL will now be fined $11,000,000

US limits tarmac wait to 3 hrs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/22passengers.html?scp=1&sq=TARMAC&st=cse

"Airlines that let a plane sit on the tarmac for more than two hours without giving passengers food or water, or more than three hours without offering them the option of getting off, will face fines of $27,500 a passenger, the Secretary of Transportation announced on Monday."

The date of the flight (Dec 16) was before the new rule have passed (a week later) ...

The date of the flight (Dec 16) was before the new rule have passed (a week later) ...

I wonder if they can fine foreign airlines too

I wonder if they can fine foreign airlines too

As I understand it, a passenger can sue damages from the airline in the USA, just like you can do in Europe with EU regulation 261/2004 - regardless of the base of the airline.

I dont know why any Israeli should be complaining, all I ever hear is We want to be like America. Welcome Aboard.

Oh you guys only want the good parts, not gonna happen

That said :td::td::td: to LY

Wow, that's miserable.

Note to self: Stay away from El Al.

I wonder if they can fine foreign airlines too

Sure. Foreign airlines operating in the US are subject to US jurisdiction while operating in the US.

I don't believe El Al could have unloaded the passengers.

Per US laws, once you have boarded the plane to an international flight you have departed the USA and the I-94 slips have been taken away from you. Knowing EWR terminal B (like most other terminals in the USA), once you are off the plane in the terminal building, there is no way to prevent a passenger from getting out and staying in the USA without registration. Deplaning would mean going through immigration and that would be a long process.
Also, there is a question of legality of the crew hours once the cabin door opens.

In all, when the question is whether to stay on the plane for 5 hours or stay in the USA for another 24 hours, I guess most would take the 5 hour delay.

I don't believe El Al could have unloaded the passengers.

Per US laws, once you have boarded the plane to an international flight you have departed the USA and the I-94 slips have been taken away from you. Knowing EWR terminal B (like most other terminals in the USA), once you are off the plane in the terminal building, there is no way to prevent a passenger from getting out and staying in the USA without registration. Deplaning would mean going through immigration and that would be a long process.
Also, there is a question of legality of the crew hours once the cabin door opens.

In all, when the question is whether to stay on the plane for 5 hours or stay in the USA for another 24 hours, I guess most would take the 5 hour delay.

US law doesn't stop other departing airlines in the US from going back to some gate at an airport to offload passengers after the flight has initially left the gate to depart the US. Other practical concerns (including those you mentioned) are what get in the way of going back to the gate -- it's not US law that is the problem.

Note to self: Stay away from El Al.

Well it seems very common at JFK reading this BA thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1030441-slightly-o-t-us-) you hear of BA passengers stuck for 7.5 hours and continental stuck for 9 hours, in this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1030684-nightmare-jfk-19-dec.html) you of hear of passengers stuck for 11 hours only 10 days ago!

Note to Self: Stay away from people who post such erotic posts, I assume ELAL will be glad for you to stay away.

Well it seems very common at JFK reading this BA thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1030441-slightly-o-t-us-) you hear of BA passengers stuck for 7.5 hours and continental stuck for 9 hours, in this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1030684-nightmare-jfk-19-dec.html) you of hear of passengers stuck for 11 hours only 10 days ago!

Note to Self: Stay away from people who post such erotic posts, I assume ELAL will be glad for you to stay away.

What's an erotic post?

And are you offended that I still stay away from El Al? :confused:

What's an erotic post?

A post that gets someone excited/aroused?

I don't believe El Al could have unloaded the passengers.

Per US laws, once you have boarded the plane to an international flight you have departed the USA and the I-94 slips have been taken away from you. Knowing EWR terminal B (like most other terminals in the USA), once you are off the plane in the terminal building, there is no way to prevent a passenger from getting out and staying in the USA without registration. Deplaning would mean going through immigration and that would be a long process.
Also, there is a question of legality of the crew hours once the cabin door opens.

In all, when the question is whether to stay on the plane for 5 hours or stay in the USA for another 24 hours, I guess most would take the 5 hour delay.

As someone who just recently handed in his I-94 in, boarded a UA plane, had to deplane (due to fuel pump issues) in SEA, and did not go through immigration again, I wonder whether this is a real issue. Of course, I wanted to get out of SEA, so I waited 21 hours inside the US (SeaTac hotels suck), and then boarded a different plane.

Now maybe one Israeli in a crowd (I thought about staying in the US, as I officially left but had to go to Japan) is not that harmful, but a plane full of Israelis is a bit too much. But of course, if they allowed UA to do so, then they should have allowed LY to do so, otherwise, they are racists, and use profiling...

A post that gets someone excited/aroused?

The author or the reader? :)

If the story is as per the article (and we should always take these stories with pinch of salt) then LY probably could have handled it a little better though I can see why they were a little restricted.

In terms of feeding the passengers, the problem with starting a full meal service while they were waiting on the ground would be, what if the problem was fixed and they got a slot for takeoff while the meal is being served?
This would have meant a further delay as a new take off slot would have had to be assigned once and only once everything was cleared away and the cabin was secured for takeoff again.

I guess the same applies for offloading passengers from the aircraft, though I cannot see how they can force anyone to stay on board if they request to leave.

I guess all the above is valid if they honestly expected the leak to be fixed sooner then it actually was.

In terms of the captain announcements, well by the sounds of it they could have done a better job.
More frequents announcements I’m sure would have not gone unmissed.
If this was a BA flight (or BD for that matter) I can assure you the passengers would be hearing from the flight deck probably every half an hour or so.
But then LY is probably the only airline I have ever travelled with when on more than one occasion neither the captain nor the first officer have bothered to make any announcement prior or after departure.

I wouldn’t have been a happy bunny had I been stuck on that aircraft, especially in Y.
It's a bit easier to cope with if you’re sat in C or F.

The author or the reader? :)

I don't want to get too personal; I certainly don't want to personally witness any tents being pitched by strangers; and I double-certainly don't want to see the pitchforks coming my way. :D

I don't want to get too personal; I certainly don't want to personally witness any tents being pitched by strangers; and I double-certainly don't want to see the pitchforks coming my way. :D

:D

The article says they were given snack and drinks. It would seem to me that would fufill the new US rule.--and there would be no fine!

The article says they were given snack and drinks. It would seem to me that would fufill the new US rule.--and there would be no fine!

I'll re-quote the rule:
Airlines that let a plane sit on the tarmac for more than two hours without giving passengers food or water, or more than three hours without offering them the option of getting off, will face fines of $27,500 a passenger

The option of offering food and water is only ok if the delay is up to 3 hours, after 3 hours they have to be able to get off

I don't want to get too personal; I certainly don't want to personally witness any tents being pitched by strangers; and I double-certainly don't want to see the pitchforks coming my way. :D

LOL seriously.

It seems that El Al is just like any other crummy airline. Totally worthless, IMHO.

El Al is just like any other crummy airline. Totally worthless, IMHO.

I assume you beleive this forum should be closed, or at least merged in to the kosher food forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1029581-proposal-rename-religious-travelers-kosher-food-forum-2.html)

I assume you beleive this forum should be closed, or at least merged in to the kosher food forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1029581-proposal-rename-religious-travelers-kosher-food-forum-2.html)

Hah, no this forum, unlike that one, actually generates traffic. Plus, I get a kick out of reading the posts over here. Good stuff.

Hah, no this forum, unlike that one, actually generates traffic. Plus, I get a kick out of reading the posts over here. Good stuff.

I dont understand the noise over this, As someone that fly quite often to the US
and inside the US, i am a bit surprised that its one flight of 6,200... It means either i am a person with very bad luck, and 40% of the times i am on that one special flight of the 6,200.

When i get stuck its in average its 2 to 4 hours and it happens on all airlines,
It happened to me as well in Qantas, BA and Thai...

\According to what you have wrote before, I am suppose to stop flying 8-)

I dont understand the noise over this, As someone that fly quite often to the US
and inside the US, i am a bit surprised that its one flight of 6,200... It means either i am a person with very bad luck, and 40% of the times i am on that one special flight of the 6,200.

When i get stuck its in average its 2 to 4 hours and it happens on all airlines,
It happened to me as well in Qantas, BA and Thai...

\According to what you have wrote before, I am suppose to stop flying 8-)

There is a big difference between a 2 hour delay and a 7 hour delay. Wouldn't you agree?

I think most folks would agree that 7 is sort of unreasonable.

I'll re-quote the rule:
Airlines that let a plane sit on the tarmac for more than two hours without giving passengers food or water, or more than three hours without offering them the option of getting off, will face fines of $27,500 a passenger

The option of offering food and water is only ok if the delay is up to 3 hours, after 3 hours they have to be able to get off

This rule does not go into effect until 120 days after December 21, 2009, the date of it was published in the Federal Register.

DOT Press Release (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot19909.htm)

Enhancing Airline Pasenger Protection - Document Details (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a6e352)

There is a big difference between a 2 hour delay and a 7 hour delay. Wouldn't you agree?

I think most folks would agree that 7 is sort of unreasonable.

Ebzed, he's enjoying try to wind us up over here, he's pretending to not have seen what I mentioned in one of my previous posts, that somebody had reported 9 hours with Continental, and with BA I found 2 complaints one of 7.5 hours, and one of 11 hours.

What I find intruiging is, that the threads title states 7 hours, the witness in the article claims 6 hours and ELAL talks about 5 hours.

Why people dont just call the cops when that happens. If I want to leave and not being allowed without proper authority I am held hostage.

And also I think that the denial / unwillingness to provide a decent drink and food service and communication to the passengers regarding the delay by the captain is just yet another example of personal behavior that is more than just questionable!

There is a big difference between a 2 hour delay and a 7 hour delay. Wouldn't you agree?

I think most folks would agree that 7 is sort of unreasonable.

First, Dont believe on everything you read on newspaper,
According to EL-AL it was 5 hours and not 7...
According to the Airpoirt, They took off on 18:14,
which even makes it less than 5 hours...

(Only drinks and snacks were offered as they probably didnt used the Auxliery Engine (sorry if that's not the name) due to the fuel leak, same all the other amenities that might require the same)

So please make me a favor and stick to your note, Dont Fly EL-AL...
I am sure they will survive without you.

What I find intruiging is, that the threads title states 7 hours, the witness in the article claims 6 hours and ELAL talks about 5 hours.


Take off was nearly 6 hours late, but boarding started 45 minutes earlier.

First, Dont believe on everything you read on newspaper,
According to EL-AL it was 5 hours and not 7...
According to the Airpoirt, They took off on 18:14,
which even makes it less than 5 hours...

(Only drinks and snacks were offered as they probably didnt used the Auxliery Engine (sorry if that's not the name) due to the fuel leak, same all the other amenities that might require the same)

So please make me a favor and stick to your note, Dont Fly EL-AL...
I am sure they will survive without you.

So you're saying a 5 hour delay is ok? Since it was "only" 5 hours we shouldn't be talking about it?

And again, I have to ask, do you take it personally when someone criticizes "your" airline? I don't get this mentality. You don't own El Al, right? Why do you care so much if I think El Al is bollucks?

So you're saying a 5 hour delay is ok? Since it was "only" 5 hours we shouldn't be talking about it?

And again, I have to ask, do you take it personally when someone criticizes "your" airline? I don't get this mentality. You don't own El Al, right? Why do you care so much if I think El Al is bollucks?

If you would think BA, UA and others are bullocks with all the other post you can find on FT then i have no issue with it, But someone bored decide to stick to EL-AL - I would say there is a different smell here.

And 5 hours sounds ok comparing to other flights i have with many others.
(And I am against any delay).

If you would think BA, UA and others are bullocks with all the other post you can find on FT then i have no issue with it, But someone bored decide to stick to EL-AL - I would say there is a different smell here.


You should do a search. Look at my rantings on JetBlue and United, in particular.

By the way, what "smell" is that?

I
And 5 hours sounds ok comparing to other flights i have with many others.
(And I am against any delay).

5 hours is not ok under any circumstances. Full stop.

I'll re-quote the rule:
Airlines that let a plane sit on the tarmac for more than two hours without giving passengers food or water, or more than three hours without offering them the option of getting off, will face fines of $27,500 a passenger

The rule was published in the Federal Registry on December 21, 2009, and does not go into effect util 120 days after that date.

The rule was published in the Federal Registry on December 21, 2009, and does not go into effect util 120 days after that date.

Welcome to FT!
Great to have you here

Todah.

I just looked it up again. While the rule was announced (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot19909.htm) on Dec 21, it was not published in the Federal Register (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7413a) until today, Dec 30, 2009.