WSJ: Freeing Fliers Imprisoned on the Tarmac...

[Tenacious]

Originally Posted by Fredd

Thanks for posting this.

[sbm12]

Originally Posted by DenverBrian

But earlier posts have said this is the exact procedure when an MX occurs. Seems to me it's just a paradigm shift - making a three-hour delay equivalent to an MX. <shrugs> Certainly from the passengers' point of view, that paradigm shift has already occurred.

No. In an MX scenario the plane drops out of line (causing some disruption) but then resumes the departure process at the end of the line, not back where they were when they left. That is a rather significant difference that isn't being accounted for.

[DenverBrian]

Originally Posted by sbm12

No. In an MX scenario the plane drops out of line (causing some disruption) but then resumes the departure process at the end of the line, not back where they were when they left. That is a rather significant difference that isn't being accounted for.

Then a plane dropping out of line for maxing at 3 hours goes to a gate, drops off those who want off, and then gets back in line. Lather, rinse, repeat if necessary. Still doesn't seem that difficult to me, and if we need to eliminate the concept of "drop out of line and then return to the spot where you were" in order to get a little relief from the three-hour prison of a stuck plane, well, so be it. IMHO.

[N965VJ]

Originally Posted by DenverBrian

Still doesn't seem that difficult to me, and if we need to eliminate the concept of "drop out of line and then return to the spot where you were" in order to get a little relief from the three-hour prison of a stuck plane, well, so be it. IMHO.

So one person is allowed off at 3:10 and the aircraft heads back out to the end of the line. Everyone else gets their arrival time pushed back by how far?

[sbm12]

Originally Posted by DenverBrian

Then a plane dropping out of line for maxing at 3 hours goes to a gate, drops off those who want off, and then gets back in line. Lather, rinse, repeat if necessary. Still doesn't seem that difficult to me, and if we need to eliminate the concept of "drop out of line and then return to the spot where you were" in order to get a little relief from the three-hour prison of a stuck plane, well, so be it. IMHO.

It isn't difficult, per se, but it also might not be practical.

What if that move causes the crew to time out? What if only one person wants out and the plane is 20 minutes from take-off but now is 3 hours away? You can repeat it as much as necessary and completely screw everyone.

I'm not saying that I like the idea of being stuck in an airplane seat for 10 hours while still on the ground, but I don't think the solution is trivial. The airlines clearly aren't doing as much as they should to address it but getting Congress involved isn't the answer, IMO.

[DenverBrian]

Originally Posted by sbm12

It isn't difficult, per se, but it also might not be practical.

What if that move causes the crew to time out? What if only one person wants out and the plane is 20 minutes from take-off but now is 3 hours away? You can repeat it as much as necessary and completely screw everyone.

I'm not saying that I like the idea of being stuck in an airplane seat for 10 hours while still on the ground, but I don't think the solution is trivial. The airlines clearly aren't doing as much as they should to address it but getting Congress involved isn't the answer, IMO.

Whenever someone imagines a scenario at 3 hours, someone else imagines a scenario at 3 hours 5 minutes where the weather magically clears and the plane "would have" taken off if not for some poor (always only one) hypothetical pax that wants off the plane. The naysayers are very good at hypothesizing these "what if" scenarios.

The facts are that several planes have been stuck for 6, 8, 10 hours, and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the public is that this is simply unacceptable.

If the airlines cannot or will not address this issue, thorny and complicated as it is (or as they prefer it to be for their own best interests), then Congress will surely act. This one's got too many people angry.

[stupidhead]

How bout mandatory cancellation, and accordingly, compensation after the plane was stuck on the tarmac for longer than the length of the flight (or some other X hour mark) waiting for takeoff? I don't know about you, but sitting on the ground waiting to take off for longer than the length of the flight is where I draw the line.

And I think we need slot controls (until such time we have bigger airports). Sorry, but airports right now simply can't handle 50 737s/A320s taking off per hour to the same destination. Maybe they'll put widebodies on domestic flights again.

[sbm12]

Originally Posted by stupidhead

I don't know about you, but sitting on the ground waiting to take off for longer than the length of the flight is where I draw the line.

You must never fly WAS-NYC in the summer.

Originally Posted by stupidhead

And I think we need slot controls (until such time we have bigger airports). Sorry, but airports right now simply can't handle 50 737s/A320s taking off per hour to the same destination. Maybe they'll put widebodies on domestic flights again.

The airports are big enough in most cases. It is the runways and ATC flows that are limiting them.

[sbm12]

Originally Posted by DenverBrian

Whenever someone imagines a scenario at 3 hours, someone else imagines a scenario at 3 hours 5 minutes where the weather magically clears and the plane "would have" taken off if not for some poor (always only one) hypothetical pax that wants off the plane. The naysayers are very good at hypothesizing these "what if" scenarios.

And this is the problem with an arbitrary time as the cutoff. Maybe the plane would take off at 3:05. Or maybe it would be cleared at 3:45 but the taxi back, refueling and other stuff would take an hour and then the crew times out. Setting such a policy is going to result in a lot more cancelled flights. The airlines are going to blame it on weather and ATC and you're going to have pax complaining about being dumped into the terminal. It will be a different problem, but it isn't a solution to the one at hand.

Being stuck on a plane on the ground for any extended period of time absolutely sucks. But I do not think that an arbitrary time line point is the correct solution to the problem.

[thebat]

Originally Posted by sbm12

And this is the problem with an arbitrary time as the cutoff. Maybe the plane would take off at 3:05. Or maybe it would be cleared at 3:45 but the taxi back, refueling and other stuff would take an hour and then the crew times out. Setting such a policy is going to result in a lot more cancelled flights. The airlines are going to blame it on weather and ATC and you're going to have pax complaining about being dumped into the terminal. It will be a different problem, but it isn't a solution to the one at hand.

Being stuck on a plane on the ground for any extended period of time absolutely sucks. But I do not think that an arbitrary time line point is the correct solution to the problem.

I think that it's unavoidable if there is ever going to be any passenger redress for this problem. All the other factors just vary too much from situation to situation. I will not renumerate them now, but just say simply, that the duration of the delay must be the ultimate criterion.

[stupidhead]

Originally Posted by sbm12

The airports are big enough in most cases. It is the runways and ATC flows that are limiting them.

Either way, the airports can't handle them. Bottom line.

[sbm12]

Originally Posted by thebat

I think that it's unavoidable if there is ever going to be any passenger redress for this problem.

What is the passenger redress? Dumped back into the terminal and a standby seat on the next flight, which might be 3 days later? No one is going to be happy with that option either. It is no better than the current system.

[alanh]

Originally Posted by sbm12

What is the passenger redress? Dumped back into the terminal and a standby seat on the next flight, which might be 3 days later? No one is going to be happy with that option either. It is no better than the current system.

I wouldn't say access to a real restroom, drinking water, air conditioned space to move around in, and the option to go to a hotel is "no better".

The "just 15 more minutes" is why crew work schedules are hard limits -- it's just not workable. If you play that game, you get 15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15.

[N965VJ]

Tarmac delays ground the fight for passenger rights

By Christopher Elliott
October 25, 2009

<SNIP>

In the past few months, a series of headline-grabbing tarmac delays has helped a couple of influential lobbyists convince the media and a few elected officials that tarmac delays are the No. 1 passenger rights problem in America.

Worse, they've convinced many travelers that tarmac delays are the only important passenger rights issue.

Don't believe me? Pull up any recent story that mentions a passenger's bill of rights, and it will inevitably refer to a proposal that would require a plane to turn back after a three-hour ground delay. I happen to disagree that such legislation would help anyone or that it could even be properly enforced, but that's beside the point.

The bigger question is whether this tunnel vision is helping the cause of airline passengers -- and how it might affect your next flight.

I think it goes without saying that other, far more important passenger issues are being overlooked. But I'll say it anyway: We're missing a lot. I asked author and consumer advocate Edward Hasbrouck to name his hot-button passenger rights issues, and alas, tarmac delays didn't make the list. What did? Truth in advertising, problems with federal preemption and failure to enforce existing consumer laws.

Linkage to the rest

[sbm12]

I can't believe I actually agree with Chris Elliott about something.