Originally Posted by
cauchy
Devil's advocate here - at some point, keeping passengers on the plane for the benefit of the airline becomes false imprisonment. Obviously, the passengers have no option up in the air and cannot leave (although it would be cool to parachute out of a plane...). But what about extended tarmac delays? What if it's 6 hours or 12 hours? What about 24 hours? Again, talking about durations longer than this incident.
Straight-up ignoring the needs of the passengers feels wrong.
Yikes what have I done?!
I was mostly wondering about this post -- which suggested the circling was done to save the financial costs of an overweight landing, and the passengers may as well be screwed further, as the compensation bill won't go up any more, no other reason. I guess the airlines write the rules in a way that tips in their favour...
Originally Posted by
TxDucky
TBH, the priority here was landing the A/C without doing something that will extend the out of service time rather than a concern about the pax. What’s done is done, the pax compensation is already baked-in.
Also, I don't think anyone (even the devil's advocate) is challenging this...which is probably why I got the deserved tongue-in-cheek reply :-P
Originally Posted by
atcodave
Safety is No 1 in all aspects of aviation, if the Captain decides the aircraft needs to hold for 1,2,4 or even 8 hours to allow the safe arrival of his aircraft, we all in the professional aviation world will move heaven and earth to accommodate him. Much better than a burning reck on the ground somewhere near an airport.