bernardd

Thanks for your response dfwmusicman - it must have been one heck of an experience to have been in that plane, and not one that most of us can fully comprehend - my experiences were mere irritations by comparison.

Do you have an opinion on the present working hour rules? Do you think the crew on AA1348 should have been replaced long before it was purely on safety grounds, even if it resulted in the flight being cancelled?

Blumie

Or not.

Doppy

This is one of the "rights" you're demanding:
Is there an exception here for anavoidable weather delays?

PMMMColonel

I agree but this is also very diffrent. These flights serve everyone on the plane and had food and beverage for that purpose.

wanaflyforless

Hmmmmm.

I have flown ~800,000 miles in the last four years and have yet to experience more than a 2 hour wait on the plane. I had around 80 segments last year that either originated or terminated in one of DFW/ORD/STL.

You say they are common! Are you sure you are not exaggerating?

wanaflyforless

Exactly. This is the United States of America, the country with one of the lowest CPM to fly anywhere in the world. I would like it to stay that way.

Government regulation usually increases cost to the consumer. If the product is acceptable without regulation, then regulation is to be avoided. 4 hours seems reasonable to me in extreme circumstances considering the alternatives.

Most delays labelled as weather are caused by weather, but often indirectly. You are wrong claiming otherwise.

wanaflyforless

I disagree!

1) The average passenger paid far less than $500.

2) The average passenger makes $500 or less/day.

3) AA did not cause the weather problem and technically owed you nothing. They fulfilled their contract 100% and giving passengers significanlty more than they paid for their tickets in vouchers seem fair for that.

I would not be apposed to AA giving more, ie either a ticket refund in addition to the voucher or 25K/50K miles in addition to the vouchers. But to call it "highly inadequate compensation" seems unfair to me.

hillrider

IMHO any product where there is a chance in a million that you will be held prisoner for 8+ hours without food, toilets, and restricted liquids is NOT acceptable to me.Agreed. Let's put it into law. Similar arguments to yours were laid out in 1999 to avoid regulation and the facts of AUS show that "self-regulation" FAILED. It will FAIL again.

Airlines need will put the cost of breaking the LAW into the equation when they make decisions--on staffing, on what planes to assign to gates, on what compensation to give out. There are no consequences whatsoever for another AUS to take place--and you could be subject to it.

hillrider

Completely wrong. Read the FACTS before responding; I suggest Google. Weather caused diversion to AUS, but AA had in its power to bring that flight to a gate and yet it chose to leave it out on the tarmac with malfunctioning toilets etc. At the same time the available AA gates were repeatedly used for other flights (so they wouldn't miss revenue), and other (non-AA) gates at the airport were available (it would have costed AA money to rent one to get the people of the flight out).

There was nothing weather-related about the 8 hour imprisonment. It took the Captain's willingness to violate company orders (he pulled into an open gate against AA's directive not to do so), something he could have done 8 hours earlier if AA management had not banned him from doing so.

PresRDC

Okay, then don't fly. That's really your only option. Even with a law in place, the odds of it happening are still going to be greater than one in a million.

It failed for less than 200 people. For the vast majority of people flying that day, the system worked just fine.

I am willing to expose 200 people to this every few years for the sake of not inconviencing the vast majorty. Any rational assessor of risk should be willing to do the same.

Note that the issue of being stuck on the plane for 8 hours is distinct from the lack of food/drink and working toilets issue.

But there are consequences -- that is what you are failing to understand. The passengers on the plane have several causes of action they can pursue against AA, mainly common law negligence and false imprisonment. If the passengers prevail, there will be worse consequences than what a law would prescribe (if you don't think that such a law would contain a liability cap then you you very naive). The potential liability is limitless and AA may well have to face a jury (juries) for their actions. I can assure you a jury, if the facts are as have been described, will be far harsher on AA than any law would be.

wanaflyforless

Excuse me; I did read the facts and do understand them.

The reason AA did not and could not fly as scheduled was weather. That was the intended meaning of my quoted comment.

Yes, AA was not forced by weather to keep that particular plane away from a gate as long as they did. Weather did force AA to not fly it to its destination.

I am not OK with the 8 hours but have a more positive view of AA's likelihood to do everything in its power to prevent a similar situation in the future (8 hours). Their new computer alerts contribute to this.

I do not find a chance in a million of a $500 voucher plus a boatload of AA miles after complaints because of a 8 hour dealy to be something worth fighting over.

hillrider

You may not have been flying much in 1999. AA already has a promise currently in effect to do everything in its power to avoid these type of on-the ground delays. Specifically, AA in 1999 has That "promise" lacked any tooth or consequences and it was promptly discarded in face of cost-cutting and led to the AUS fiasco. My statement of fact is that there's nothing new about the current PR blitz that has not been already promised in 1999 and was already in effect in December when those passengers were trapped by AA for over 8 hours.

wanaflyforless

How much I flew in '99 is irrelevant.
Note, likelihood suffices for me.
Inconveniencing a few people every few years is not the end of the world.


As for consequences, PresRDC explained well the consequences in place.

hillrider

The tool is way too blunt for the situation. How much money in lawyer's fees to you need to put up for this? How many hours of your personal time do you need to dedicate to deposition, testimony, etc.? How much personal information are you willing to have end up in a public record as AA's lawyers try to make it look like that your time isn't worth much ? And then do it all over again in appellate court? How many months/years before you see anything?

What was the last case you can cite that has been won this way? The airline have huge attorney pools and will put a lot of resources to avoid setting a precedent; if you're an average American you have a $42,000 income to draw upon to mount your assault--and even if you find someone who's willing to take the case on contingency, you are still working full time and would strongly prefer keeping your private life private.

What we need is a deterrent for the airlines so they don't cut corners. The goal is prevention, not getting rich after being abused.

hillrider

Then having a law that compensates those few people every few years should be completely acceptable. It's an American trait of compassion to protect the weak.