Newsstand - Passengers trapped on plane for 22 Hours

This is an unbelievable story about American Airlines trapping people on a flight for 22 hours.


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116804368966768690-lMyQjAxMDE3NjA4ODAwNDgzWj.html

WOW! I would be claiming huge amounts of compensation from AA for this incident.:eek:

There is a big thread about this over at the AA board.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=641387

After more than eight hours on the ground, and 12 hours after the plane had left San Francisco, the captain told passengers he was going to an empty gate, even though he didn't have permission.

"He said, 'Enough is enough. I should have done this a long time ago,'" recalls passenger Cindy Welch, who was trying to get home to Missouri. American won't identify the captain.Wow!

I hope the captain doesn't get punished for going to an empty gate without permission. Given the situation and his level-headed handling of it, IMO, he should be commended and given a bonus.

This is an unbelievable story about American Airlines trapping people on a flight for 22 hours.Actually it's a number of stories, one of which is about international passengers being "trapped" for 10 hours after they landed at Tulsa. The AA crew was out of hours (couldn't have flown further) and there is no ICE facility at TUL. If there is anyone to blame here (apart from the weather gods), I don't see how it's AA. Government laws prevented these passengers from leaving the plane.

If there is anyone to blame here (apart from the weather gods), I don't see how it's AA. Government laws prevented these passengers from leaving the plane.

=================

I disagree. American should have flown the plane to a location that had gate availability and customs.

I disagree. American should have flown the plane to a location that had gate availability and customs.

You gotta have enough fuel to reach such an airport. That means carrying that extra fuel on every long-haul flight. On very long flights it can take as much as half of your extra fuel to carry that fuel so 10,000 extra pounds at departure could cost you 5,000 pounds of additional fuel burn leaving you only 5,000# of extra fuel at arrival.

This is an unbelievable story about American Airlines trapping people on a flight for 22 hours.


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116804368966768690-lMyQjAxMDE3NjA4ODAwNDgzWj.html

While they were stuck on the ground for 10 hours, the other 12 of it was the flight from Zurich, Switzerland, to Dallas.

A similar thing happened to a Northwest flight 2 years ago. Passengers on a 10 hour flight from Amsterdam to Seattle were diverted to Moses Lake Washington and had to stay on the plane for about 10 hours. Eventually Northwest let them into a secure room surrounded by law enforcement and brought in some pizzas. It was a rather unpleasant place that was too small but at least they weren't in plane seats anymore. They arrived in Seattle about 28 hours after leaving. Compensation for my friend in Y-class was 50,000 Northwest miles.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-12-30-amsterdam-flight_x.htm

PS: News crews (I had called some but I'm sure many others did) were waiting at the final arrival. I told my friend that I had been waiting at the airport for all that time and that he owed me at least a coffee.

There is a big thread about this over at the AA board.


Indeed there is, with 152 posts so far!

Passengers initially had to wait on board because the Grant County International Airport was not equipped to screen international travelers.
it has "International Aiport" in its name but cant process intl pax?? :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Actually it's a number of stories, one of which is about international passengers being "trapped" for 10 hours after they landed at Tulsa. The AA crew was out of hours (couldn't have flown further) and there is no ICE facility at TUL. If there is anyone to blame here (apart from the weather gods), I don't see how it's AA. Government laws prevented these passengers from leaving the plane.

AA easily could have diverted it to IAH, MEM, or another airport with US Customs & Immigrations facilities. Some of the "smaller" airports in Texas such as SAT and even AUS have FIS facilities for flights from Mexico

I suspect they didn't expect to be on the ground in TUL for long, but someone should have used common sense and diverted it somewhere with a FIS facility.

This reminds me of the NWA flight to SEA that diverted to Moses Lake because of fog. They expected to be there for a short period of time, but instead it turned into a long drawn out saga. The only other airport in the Pacific NW that has an FIS is PDX (as far as I'm aware) -- but for DFW alternatives, there's a whole slew of airports in the area with a FIS and CBP staffing.

You gotta have enough fuel to reach such an airport. That means carrying that extra fuel on every long-haul flight. On very long flights it can take as much as half of your extra fuel to carry that fuel so 10,000 extra pounds at departure could cost you 5,000 pounds of additional fuel burn leaving you only 5,000# of extra fuel at arrival.

While TUL is short of DFW, as pointed out in another post there is AUS, SAT, and IAH in texas alone. Given the wx situation another alternative short of DFW would be MEM.

If possible, during wx diversions, they should at least attempt to land at an airport with a FIS with international flights, IMHO. That way if they do get "stuck", they have a place

A diversion is scariest aspect of air travel. Some people worry about crashes, I only worry about diversions. :) Actually it only happened to me once, 5 hours on the ground after a 6 hour red-eye. That was a relatively pleasant situation because the crew was wonderful and passengers were well behaved, but in spite of that it felt to me like unbearable torture. When you start thinking about 8 hours of smelly toilets and passengers crying and that kind of stuff, it boggles the mind.

If there is anyone to blame here (apart from the weather gods), I don't see how it's AA. Government laws prevented these passengers from leaving the plane.

I also disagree. In cases like this, one must assume the worse.

AA owes these people compensation.

There is a big thread about this over at the AA board.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=641387

Dead link. :confused:

Correct link is

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=644886

(I think the other one was a related thread that was merged into the above one.)

I don't blame airlines for the discomfort associated with diversions. You can't expect them to pay for extra gates that would rarely be used. If anybody is to blame, it's the passengers who refuse to pay higher fares. The passengers are the ones who limit the resources.

With a large number of diversions the absolute top priority is safety. You suddenly have a large number of planes that are low on fuel with fewer landing slots available. The alternate airports might also have bad weather approaching. You have to appreciate that nobody ever dies as a result of diversions. Maybe the newspaper headline should say "No fatalities reported after mass diversions" instead saying "People trapped on planes".

"No facilities reported after mass diversions" instead saying "People trapped on planes".

I guess the lack of working "facilities" while trapped on the planes was part of the problem. :D :cool:

If the airline had the proper staffing levels, then the planes wouldn't be 'stuck' on the ground because the pilot/flight staff had worked too many hours that day. They could replace them with a fresh crew, and be off.

OK. I fixed the "facilities" goof. :)

My own experience with being on a diverted flight helps me appreciate things from the airline's point of view. The pilots were constantly briefing us on what they had to deal with and they answered all the passenger's questions. The biggest issue that they faced was the possibility of taking off too soon and then being forced to divert a second time, the weather was just too unpredicable at that point. They were clearly more concerned about safety than comfort, and it's hard to fault them for that.

While TUL is short of DFW, as pointed out in another post there is AUS, SAT, and IAH in texas alone. Given the wx situation another alternative short of DFW would be MEM.

If possible, during wx diversions, they should at least attempt to land at an airport with a FIS with international flights, IMHO. That way if they do get "stuck", they have a placeMany in these threads display a gross ignorance of the decision process involved in a diversion.

First, it is the Captain's sole responsibility - AA ops can give advice, but they don't have the final say. Second, nobody here knows the exact situation the Captain faced, or his fuel status at the time. AUS, SAT and IAH are all further than DFW which may well not have been possible to reach with the required legal fuel reserve. Stopping short (MEM etc.) might have been an option if the forecast/ATIS for DFW had indicated that a diversion was unavoidable at the time. From what I read, the weather closed in sooner than expected at DFW; weather will do that - it's why they call it a forecast :eek: .

There's an old pilots' saying "I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here". It holds true for passengers too, I'd say.

The problem here is a lack of definitive rules. The airline industry is governed by rules...flight crew duty times, etc. etc. What is lacking is PASSENGER rules governing the maximum time on the ground in the plane. The airlines will tell you it is impossible to implement any such thing but, funny, they do for the crews.

If a crew can time out, then a passenger can time out. Call you Congressman and Senators and ask the DOT to take action. Seems like the airlines don't want to get near this......

it has "International Aiport" in its name but cant process intl pax?? :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There are several reasons why an "International Airport" couldn't process int'l pax. One, it could handle int'l cargo flights, which require a different screening process than pax. Or, it could handle flights to/from Canada, which take advantage of pre-clearance in Canada and thus can operate to airports without FIS. In the case of TUL, I'm guessing it's the former.

That being said, adding the phrase "international airport" is also a mis-leading marketing gimmick in some cases, designed to lure international service.

While TUL is short of DFW, as pointed out in another post there is AUS, SAT, and IAH in texas alone.

I guess you've missed the story about the roughly five AA flights that did divert to AUS? Considering the weather that day, diversions to the South or West of DFW for a flight inbound from the North or East were not an option.

We don't know where the flight was when the need to divert became apparent but TUL may have been in either range while MEM was not. The availability of customs is not something that would slip the mind of an international crew needing to divert. That they chose an airport without customs, absent evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe that they chose it for good reasons.

If the airline had the proper staffing levels, then the planes wouldn't be 'stuck' on the ground because the pilot/flight staff had worked too many hours that day. They could replace them with a fresh crew, and be off.

From where would those crews come? The reserves would be at the crew domicile in DFW.

The airlines will tell you it is impossible to implement any such thing but, funny, they do for the crews.

No they don't.

The rules only prohibit the crews from departing on another flight. They don't do anything to force the crew to land or force a crew that has landed to be deplaned.

I guess you've missed the story about the roughly five AA flights that did divert to AUS? Considering the weather that day, diversions to the South or West of DFW for a flight inbound from the North or East were not an option.

We don't know where the flight was when the need to divert became apparent but TUL may have been in either range while MEM was not. The availability of customs is not something that would slip the mind of an international crew needing to divert. That they chose an airport without customs, absent evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe that they chose it for good reasons.

I'm quite aware of the flights that diverted to AUS, as well as other airports in the region.

Typically when an international flight such as this diverts to an airport without FIS, it's done so because they expect the diversion to be short. I suspect they landed at TUL, expected the wx to clear within a short period of time, get back into the air and fly to DFW.

You know what though? The flight likely could have taken off to make a second diversion at an airport with a FIS when it was obvious DFW wasn't going to clear, but before the crew timed out. That obviously didn't happen either.

There's a lot of things that didn't happen that day because of a number of factors including an excessive amount of diversions, wx didn't clear as predicted, and staffing shortages because of the holidays to name a few.

Take a look at the NWA flight that landed in Moses Lake -- similar circumstance, but IIRC the aircraft went mechanical while on the ground, pilots timed out, and it became a long nightmare for the pax on-board.

Providing they had sufficient fuel (it's possible they could have been circling for a bit), there's a whole range of airports they could of diverted to, many with FIS's. I wasn't on the flight, nor am I involved in AA's operations, so I can only speculate.

I do believe it is time that congress passes an "Airline Passengers Bill of Rights" - Congress was looking to pass such a bill after the NWA fiasco in Detroit. The airlines then fought like heck, lobbied congress saying "it'll never happen again", they wrote up all these "Customers First" documents outlining procedures to avoid a repeat, and lets just say it hasn't stopped such fiasco's from happening such as the SFO flight on the ground at AUS. NW and DL have also had a few isolated incidents since then that I am aware of where the ball was dropped and pax were kept on an aircraft for an extended duration.

FWIW, I worked in airline operations when I was in college - and I have seen the ball dropped, so to speak with poor decisions on a couple of diversions - they were done with the best of intention but a diversion to another airport would have had a better outcome. Ops can make suggestions, but at the end of the day it's up to the PIC.

Wow!

Whoa!! they stuck on the plane for almost 24 hours. I can't wait much longer reason why they stay inside the aircraft for 22 hours. Which airlines is that? :confused: Does they gave more food or water onboard the aircraft? How they can handle with passengers is stranded?

dont forget - TSA took the water.