AA sets new policy limits on onboard waiting during delays

 
Old Feb 9, 2007, 3:55 pm
  #31  
Hoc
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Juan Capistrano, CA
Programs: Bonvoy Titanium, Hilton Diamond, AA 2.5 MM, United Gold, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 2,460
Good to See That AA At Least Has SOME Policy Regarding Delays

At first, I was going to post this in the other thread regarding the new policy, but then I thought it's probably a hijack of that thread.

AA suggests that the "four-hour" policy will probably never be used. While it is true that I have not been stranded on an AA flight on the runway for more than four hours, I have been stranded on one for at least two hours many, many times.

Most recently, on a JFK-LAX flight last month, we were stuck in the plane on the runway for two hours because the pilot noticed a chip in the windshield of the cockpit, and they had to get a ground crew out to measure the chip and decide whether it was within the FAA's allowable depth for such chips. To make up for the delay, the flight crew handed out free earbuds in coach. Didn't help much, since the IFE in our seats was broken. A friendly FA advised me that broken IFE systems and other internal comfort systems are "par for the course" on AA planes flying the last of several flights of their day. In any event, it did make for quite an uncomfortable and tedious experience. Particularly loved getting into LAX at about 1:50 am instead of 11:30 pm, when we had been scheduled (due to headwinds, no time was made up in flight, and the plane was delayed a bit more).

I can only imagine what hell it must have been for those stranded for 8+ hours.
Hoc is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 4:51 pm
  #32  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by Doppy
Would you rather wait two hours, go back to the gate and get stuck at the airport overnight (at your own expense), or wait three hours and then eventually get to your destination?
I'm happy with the 4 hour number if it means they won't cancel the flight, particularly if it's in a high demand period (Thanksgiving, Christmas), or last flight of the day, or there's no open seats on later flights (you really do have a lot of variables out there you don't know about when you're sitting on the plane).

Just this week I had a 2 hour delay at DFW (first hour weather, second hour mechanical), and a 1 hour delay at ORD (because of the SFO power failure). You just don't sweat the 1-2 hour delays, and if 4 hours offers me some assurance, or at least better odds, we'll get to my destination, I'll live with 4 hours. I don't want to go back to the gate if we're that close and risk a crew going illegal, or having the flight cancelled.

Having said that, with over 500,000 actual flight miles on AA, I can't recall a single delay that fell in the 3-4 hour range. Lots in the 1-2 hour range, but I don't recall ever sitting on a plane for 3-4 hours waiting for departure. If that happening on a regular basis to some FTers, I'd sure like to know what routes it's happening on.
tom911 is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 5:22 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Madison WI
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT - 2.9MM, Lifetime AC, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Hertz Precs Crcl
Posts: 2,208
I also have my own strong feelings on this issue. But I will not post them here. Instead of hearing from a lot of FT's who where NOT on this flight, I would love to hear from some who WERE on this flight. After all, THEY endured this event, not the rest of us. Does that mean I consider THEIR views more valid - YES, I do! 'Experts' - flame on!
Madison Guy is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 5:25 pm
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY (finally); previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM; BA GLD
Posts: 17,203
Originally Posted by Madison Guy
I also have my own strong feelings on this issue. But I will not post them here. Instead of hearing from a lot of FT's who where NOT on this flight, I would love to hear from some who WERE on this flight. After all, THEY endured this event, not the rest of us. Does that mean I consider THEIR views more valid - YES, I do! 'Experts' - flame on!
Ok, I'll start.

Blumie is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 5:56 pm
  #35  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by Madison Guy
Instead of hearing from a lot of FT's who where NOT on this flight, I would love to hear from some who WERE on this flight.
You might want to head over to this existing thread, which included some first time posters that were on the flight:

Passengers Stranded for 10 hrs on AA want Bill of Rights
tom911 is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:07 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,223
An arbitrary 4-hour rule is dumb. They need to be flexible.

I was on a weather diversion that kept us on the ground over 4 hours waiting for fog at JFK to clear. If we cancelled at 4 hours we would have missed a chance to go home. Even if we just went to the gate, that would have only made us wait longer. It was better to stay on the plane and get home.

Furthermore, if pilots take off too soon hoping to beat the arbitrary 4-hour time limit, they run the risk of continued bad weather forcing a second diversion, and that would really ruin your day.
Bobster is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:14 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: AA GLD (1MM), DL GLD, Marriott Plat, RCL D+, X Elite
Posts: 3,229
While I certainly agree that the 4 hour mark (I can only remember one flight in 4 years at the airport that ever waited that long for departure away from the gate) is a good point for the decision makers (the Captain, dispatch and station ops) to have a pow-wow on whether or not it's time to call it a day, I would be fearful of setting a hard and fast wall at which the only option is to dump the flight. Someone needs to be able to look at the big picture. If you're at the 4 hour mark, but flights are rapidly being released for departure, it's probably best to wait it out and blast off, or you're never gonna get home.

I'm sure there is some wiggle room with this, or at least I hope so. I'm sure AA wouldn't tie themselves down by writing this into the Contract of Carriage or anything like that.
MJonTravel is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:24 pm
  #38  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,546
Originally Posted by Madison Guy
I also have my own strong feelings on this issue. But I will not post them here. Instead of hearing from a lot of FT's who where NOT on this flight, I would love to hear from some who WERE on this flight. After all, THEY endured this event, not the rest of us. Does that mean I consider THEIR views more valid - YES, I do! 'Experts' - flame on!
If anything, their opinions are less valid because they may well not be able to look at the situation rationally and without emotion.

This is a cost/benefit analysis decision at its core and the best people to do such an evaluation are those who have not been personally affected.

I agree with flyastrojets. Hard and fast rules are self-defeating and will only result in more chaos. If AA gets it wrong (and I am not convinced that it did in the recent incident), there are post-event remedies for those affected.
PresRDC is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:25 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by flyastrojets
While I certainly agree that the 4 hour mark (I can only remember one flight in 4 years at the airport that ever waited that long for departure away from the gate) is a good point for the decision makers (the Captain, dispatch and station ops) to have a pow-wow on whether or not it's time to call it a day, I would be fearful of setting a hard and fast wall at which the only option is to dump the flight. Someone needs to be able to look at the big picture. If you're at the 4 hour mark, but flights are rapidly being released for departure, it's probably best to wait it out and blast off, or you're never gonna get home.

I'm sure there is some wiggle room with this, or at least I hope so. I'm sure AA wouldn't tie themselves down by writing this into the Contract of Carriage or anything like that.
I certainly hope so too. This has always been one of my concerns with the statutory bill of rights approach - if you cast the rule in stone there will always be circumstances when it's absurd to abide by the absolute letter of the law. Assuming AA abide by their own guidelines, and the vast majority of 4 hour waits mean a return to the gate, then this sounds reasonable to me.

I'd also comment that if they are thinking of stepping a few minutes over the self-imposed limit then it's HIGHLY important that the Captain explains to the passengers honestly and fully why he's doing this, and what the alternatives would be if he went to the gate as required. Most (sadly not all) passengers are reasonable, practical people and will accept this if it's explained that it's in their interest - we can go after a 4:15 wait or you can sleep on a cot in DFW would usually do it for me!
bernardd is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:36 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Originally Posted by oklAAhoma
Exactly. 4 hours or 24 hours (or 48 hours)? Having recently been stuck in BNA for an extra day, I concur that a 4 hour wait would be a much more tolerable option.
Was it a weather problem?
AA Novice is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 6:41 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Originally Posted by bernardd
Assuming AA abide by their own guidelines, and the vast majority of 4 hour waits mean a return to the gate, then this sounds reasonable to me.
Fat chance. AA already made those promises on 15 September 1999 with the "Customer Commitment" plan, and they've demonstrated that these are empty promises. Reread what AA committed to us they would do for onboard holds of two hours or more:
Essential Customer Needs During Extraordinary Delays
Our top priority is the safety and well-being of our customers, and we are focused on having all our flights arrive and deplane on schedule. On very rare occasions, there may be extraordinary events that result in very lengthy onboard delays. These are situations in which an aircraft is delayed on the ground (other than on an active runway or taxiway) but does not have access to a terminal gate for more than two hours. We have developed detailed contingency plans at every domestic airport to address these situations. In such events, we will make every reasonable effort to ensure your essential needs, such as food (snack bar, such as a Nutri-Grain), water, restroom facilities, and basic medical assistance, are met. Every American Airlines and American Eagle U.S. airport team has an operational contingency plan in place to address these needs, which includes coordination with the local airport authorities and other airlines serving the airport when appropriate. Each plan designates a local control point to coordinate activities of the local team and establishes an open communication line with our centralized System Operations Control center located at our headquarters.
We all know how much AA's word is worth: we have proof that there are no "detailed contingency plans" at AUS, that AA refused to cooperate with local airport authorities and other airlines to get a gate for the fateful flight, that the local crew and System Operations Control completely ignored the Captain's pleas (who saved the day by disobeying AA's orders), that there was no effort whatsoever to "ensure essential needs, such as food (snack bar, such as a Nutri-Grain), water, restroom facilities, and basic medical assistance" and on and on and on. And this is way after the two hours where this clause could be triggered.

The new 4-hour "rule" makes even more of a mockery of the existing 2-hour "commitment".

Of course, under the current voluntary system AA doesn't owe anybody anything for not doing what it promised to do--heck, they haven't even refunded the tickets to the passengers of 1348, let alone pay them in cash for their imprisonment (just a voucher with a 12-month expiration date for an airline that I'm sure they never want to fly again).

We need an airline lemon law or any of us, or, worse, kids, could end up being the ones trapped 10 hours on a fetulent airplane with no care for our "essential needs". Please write your Congresspeople and ask for it.
hillrider is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 7:02 pm
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Originally Posted by PresRDC
Hard and fast rules are self-defeating and will only result in more chaos.
Why wouldn't we extend that line of thinking to other aviation rules, like duty time for pilots? You know, depending on the situation, the pilot could work more than the current hard and fast FAA rule allows. And there will be a pow-wow to decide whether he/she should or not.
hillrider is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 7:08 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: North Carolina
Programs: AA Advantage, Starwood, Hilton Honors, Points.com
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by old3
From today's Dallas Morning News:

AA sets limits on onboard waiting

After debacle, American will keep fliers on planes no longer than 4 hours



03:44 PM CST on Friday, February 9, 2007
By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

American Airlines Inc. says it won't hold passengers on grounded aircraft more than four hours, a policy born from its December debacle in which thousands of passengers spent hours waiting for storms to pass inside crowded, parked planes.

American spokesman Tim Wagner said the Dec. 29 situation was so rare that American veterans can't recall a similar day when weather disrupted operations in such a way.

Even so, the Fort Worth-based carrier decided that in the future, four hours will be the maximum they would hold a flight before deciding to cancel it and unload the passengers.

"It's a rule now," Mr. Wagner said. "It's a rule that may never be used again, though."

Passengers stuck on plane over 8 hours

A prolonged series of thunderstorms disrupted operations at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from midday through late evening on the Friday between Christmas and New Year's Day, when American's airplanes were filled with holiday travelers.

American's operations managers diverted 121 American and American Eagle flights to other airports, and other flights taxied away from gates at originating airports and sat while waiting for D/FW weather to improve.

Officials said they didn't cancel the flights for hours on Dec. 29 because they expected the storms to abate. Instead, thunderstorms kept re-forming and passing over North Texas, and thousands of passengers were kept waiting on parked airplanes.

A number of passengers caught on those flights particularly from several flights that were diverted to Austin and sat on the ground for eight hours or longer are pressing Congress to pass laws protecting passengers from recurrences.


Other changes

In addition to the four-hour policy, American is making changes at its systems operations control center in Fort Worth to better handle diversions and make sure officials are aware when passengers' wait times are building up.

The airline is creating a position to oversee diversions and help schedule flights to get passengers back to its connecting hubs. It is developing automation tools to warn managers when passengers have been on the ground a long time. The carrier said it also was "reviewing all procedures related to customer handling and make appropriate changes as needed."


Passengers' treatment

Stranded passengers had criticized the airline for how it handled passengers after the flight cancellations, with inadequate staffing at airports, poor communications about what was going to happen next and not enough help while they were waiting.

Mr. Wagner said American was reluctant to cancel flights that day because it didn't want to strand the thousands of passengers, knowing that it would have a hard time finding seats for them over the holiday weekend.

He said 4,600 customers on 67 planes sat more than three hours on Dec. 29, a good portion of whom were kept on board for more than four hours.

American is sending apologies and vouchers of up to $500 to passengers who were subjected to waits of three hours or more on the ground.
Having been a passenger on one of the aforementioned 67 planes that sat on the tarmac for more than three hours on 12/29, I have to say that I think $500 is highly inadequate compensation for what virtually all these passengers experienced thanks to American's lousy service.
ncdecolover is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 7:13 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Madison WI
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT - 2.9MM, Lifetime AC, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Hertz Precs Crcl
Posts: 2,208
Originally Posted by tom911
You might want to head over to this existing thread, which included some first time posters that were on the flight:

Passengers Stranded for 10 hrs on AA want Bill of Rights
Thank you very much. I did, from it's beginning. (I think there were references in several other threads as well.) I just was trying to relay my thoughts that one should not speak 'expertly' about events that one was not witness too; however, others have made some very good points as to why on-site witness may be prejudice. (While conceeding those points - I'd still like to see if those posters would have a different reaction if THEY were in COACH on that flight - but nonetheless, interesting points.)
btw - Blumie - I certainly was NOT referring to you!
Madison Guy is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2007, 8:23 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by hillrider
Why wouldn't we extend that line of thinking to other aviation rules, like duty time for pilots? You know, depending on the situation, the pilot could work more than the current hard and fast FAA rule allows. And there will be a pow-wow to decide whether he/she should or not.
First, I think you should go back to the previous thread about AA1348 and look for the comments from LarryJ. Also, go to the NTSB web site and, if you haven't done so before, read the accident report for the AA crash in Oklahoma - I believe it was AA1420 in 1999?

I've said this before, and I think it's worth repeating - the use of the rules here worries me.

If I have it right, the flight deck crew have two limits they have to stay within - a total of 8 hours gate-to-gate and a maximum of a 16 hour working day, though I'm not sure where this is measured from.

Did AA1348 go straight to AUS from SFO, or did it circle for a while? Whatever happened they would have used say 4 hours of their 8 hour day getting to AUS before they sat on the plane for 8:10. If they had clearance at that point, they could have departed for DFW, say another hour by the time they got the aircraft ready to go, taxied out and reached DFW. What would have happened if the weather had deteriorated again enroute? They might have tried to make a landing in lousy conditions at night, or they might have deteriorated a second time. If they got lucky and landed directly they would have been in control of the aircraft for 13 or 14 hours solid, with negligible rest.

Now think about the Oklahoma accident. The NTSB laid part of the blame on a fatigued crew landing in a thunderstorm. Sound familiar? I'm sure they were trying to do their best for the passengers, but would you choose to be flown by any crew after all those hours on duty in a plane in AUS?

In summary there might be FAA rules on working hours, but to me, the layman, the idea that 8+ hours (coincidentally the maximum length of the working day) sitting in a plane on the tarmac somehow doesn't count against the working hours seems to make a mockery of the rules. Maybe someone can show me this is indeed safe, but it doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting.

Is it going to be any better if the FAA now tries to regulate the waiting time for passengers during weather delays? Frankly I think we all ought to be asking serious questions of the FAA and the industry about how this crew were "legal" and why crew hadn't been replaced or the flight cancelled long before on safety grounds.

Coincidentally, a change in the rules for how this waiting time is counted would place a limit on the time passengers can be cooped up in the plane and achieve all of the results you're looking for, while improving safety overall.

Last edited by bernardd; Feb 9, 2007 at 8:42 pm
bernardd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.