My husband is sat on the plane right now and has been since 8pm EST, still no idea when they'll take off. I thought this stuff was against FAA rules now?
Flight cancelled at 3.45am EST, after second takeoff aborted because crew complained they were tired. Meanwhile passengers were sat on the plane the whole time, except when they were allowed off for 30 minutes. Major fail by US Airways.
Unfortunately delays can happen despite the best of efforts. C'est la vie
Regarding the crew being "tired" (perhaps timed out?)--well, would you rather have them fly, tired, overnight, over the ocean?
Huh??
The flight was from PHL -- a major US hub. US should have had another crew ready. Also, what was the explanation for the delay? If it was mechanical, US could be on the hook for major compensation. See here.
__________________
My incredible photo trip report in OZ/TG/LX F: The departure and the return.
Delay no 1 - engine failure as they were in line to takeoff
Delay no 2 - GPS failure
Delay no 3 - power outage at the terminal
Delay no 4 - crew decide they're tired, words of the captain but yes I understand they timed out while waiting tower clearance (completely understandable but that had to have been clear 5 minutes prior when they were still at the terminal)
Delay no 5 - no replacement crew available
Sure, I know mechanical problems happen. But it was obvious an hour in to it that the flight was going to end up getting cancelled, offering a cookie and a glass of tap water in 8 hours doesn't go far.
Because they have no seats on coming days flights they're trying to run an extra flight at 8am, on an incoming plane. Police have already been called as its getting rowdy...
The flight was from PHL -- a major US hub. US should have had another crew ready.
Should being the magic word. Of course it could've been handled better, but it's not such a shocking result. Cabin crew can time out too, and I guess it's harder finding a whole new cabin crew than just rounding up two pilots (don't know if that happened here or not)
There was another thread around here where people said US sometimes has a spare A330 at PHL, but I guess that wasn't an option tonight either
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo
Also, what was the explanation for the delay? If it was mechanical, US could be on the hook for major compensation. See here.
Unfortunately this applies only to EU-registered carriers or to departures out of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
* departing from an EU member state, or
* travelling to an EU member state on an airline based in an EU member state
So that's also not fair...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbjen
Delay no 1 - engine failure as they were in line to takeoff
Delay no 2 - GPS failure Delay no 3 - power outage at the terminal
Delay no 4 - crew decide they're tired, words of the captain but yes I understand they timed out while waiting tower clearance (completely understandable but that had to have been clear 5 minutes prior when they were still at the terminal)
Delay no 5 - no replacement crew available
Quite a run of bad luck here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbjen
Sure, I know mechanical problems happen. But it was obvious an hour in to it that the flight was going to end up getting cancelled
Obvious? Sometimes late flights DO operate. If they cancelled preemptively, people would blame them for giving up too soon
__________________ Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Your hubby has a good case for compensation of 600 Euros. Please read carefully my hotlink above. A recent EU ruling reaffirmed that mechanical delays are rarely considered to be "extraordinary circumstances." Good luck!
__________________
My incredible photo trip report in OZ/TG/LX F: The departure and the return.
Not on a non-EU airline, I already investigated. Just an unfortunate run of events, handled very poorly by US Airways. And he's traveling for a family funeral to make matters worse.
Looks like there's two cases in that article, and one of them starts like this:
Quote:
The case in question centers on United Airlines flight 949, which was scheduled to depart from London
So UA refused compensation even with the law IS on the side of the consumer. Those are the guys who are suing, but that's not the same situation as we have here
The other guy in the article--whose flight was delayed ex-USA--isn't suing because he'd have no leg to stand on
__________________ Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 6,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo
That is not certain by any means. See my link directly above.
It is certain by all means
The EU compensation laws ONLY cover US airlines when DEPARTING from the EU. They do NOT cover non-EU airlines flying TO the EU.
So if you are on an American airline leaving London (as your article points to) then they are covered, and compensation may be payable if it falls within the regulation.
In the case of the OP, it is a non-EU airline, flying to, not from the EU, so there is NO compensation under EU guidelines (if the OP's husband had been on an EU airline that may have been different).
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 19,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbjen
Flight cancelled at 3.45am EST, after second takeoff aborted because crew complained they were tired. Meanwhile passengers were sat on the plane the whole time, except when they were allowed off for 30 minutes. Major fail by US Airways.
Yikes, I hope you don't mean what you wrote. It would be highly irresponsible to abort a takeoff for anything but a true emergency. The crew should realize that they're tired or have timed out before the plane starts rolling down the runway. No reason to hit the brakes so hard, it would have been safer to complete the takeoff, burn fuel quickly, and then return and land.
If passengers were held on the aircraft continuously for a period exceeding four hours, US could face fines from the USA government.
__________________
Check out the new External Miles and Points Resources forum.
Technically, not taking off after receiving take off clearance is an abort. Hitting the brakes "so hard" is assuming a high speed abort, otherwise there's no reason to use more than normal braking. I've personally had aborts where take off clearance was received, brakes released, and an engine compressor stalled when power was advanced - the speed was less than normal taxi speed. No big drama - retard power, notify the tower, and exit the runway at the first usable intersection.
I'd personally tend to excuse the layperson's use of "aborted take off" as meaning at any time after leaving the gate since you don't leave the gate unless you intend, at that time, to take off eventually.
