My longest east coast flight ever - 13 hours. Is this a record?
 

Leaving Heathrow 25 late on the 15th on the BA189 to Newark is the norm for me. (late loading of bags). We took 7.5 hours to get to Newark landing 25 late due to a northerly approach. On landing, it was clear all was not well - the runway had a fair amount of snow. We taxied slowly off the active runway and stopped. Newark had been caught out by 4 inches of snow. Loads of ploughs out trying to recover the situation, but the airport was gridlocked. A lufthansa A346-6 was eventually deplaned on the taxiway - I don't know how long it had been there for. Nothing taking off but more landing!!
After 3 hours, we moved 100 feet. The pilots couldn 't get a response from ATC or the NJ Port Authority who run the active side of the airport. We moved closer and stopped again short of our gate. A promise of a gate around 3.5 hours in when the earlier BA flight left, was reneged on as the port authority (fairly) decided to prioritise a Virgin flight who had been suck longer. We went around the block twice (as everything was blocking everything else) finally getting to a gate 5.5 hours after landing - totally 13 hours from gate to gate. (I could have gong to HK in the same time!) Updates from the cockpit were sparse at times but good. Cabin crew did two rounds of soft drinks in the 5.5 hours (i suspect they were running out!) and restarted the IFE. The toilets became a bit of a no go zone towards the end as well. The guy next to me watched two films during the wait. We got to the stand around 1am and with only 4 immigration officers on (and several aircraft full of very p****d people), immigration took another hour, and I got to my Manhattan hotel at 0315 local (0815 London time) some 16 hours after pushing back at LHR. The Captain was decent enough to apologise to each person as we got off, and although the delay was not BA's fault - we all left the aircraft stiff, hungry, thirsty and in need of a clean loo. (plus some exercise and stretching)
Though the delay is airport incompetence / weather related, is there grounds to claim from BA?

That sounds miserable, sorry to hear of the ordeal.

Unfortunately it sounds completely out of BA’s control. I’ve been at EWR during a major snowstorm and ended up being canceled after the de-icing truck could not work fast enough. We were fortunate enough to get a gate quickly as the domestic airlines had proactively canceled most flights.

There are US guidelines to try to avoid situations like this, but I believe they apply to domestic flights more strictly than international flights (3 hours vs 4 hours), but that limit can be extended as needed by ATC.

My guess is that priority was given to departing flights needing to return to the gate to allow passengers to deplane, further exacerbating the issue for arriving passengers.

No.

No recourse through EU261 I believe, however, if your version of corrects is accurate (5.5 hours after landing), then BA may have been in breach the US's strict tarmac delay rules and could be heavily fined. I should note, there are exceptions to this 4 hour tarmac delay rule for international flights (safety and security related), but these exemptions are not handed out frequently from what I gather. It's outlined in BA's conditions of carriage under Tarmac Delay here: Tarmac Delay

BA also has other obligations regarding a Tarmac Delay which are outlined on the US DoT website here: DoT Tarmac Delay

I would also note that snow is certainly not a valid excuse on violating these rules, as seen here with the $1.5mil fine the DoT issued to Frontier Airlines as a result of their incompetence during Denver's largest snowstorm of the year. Article: Frontier Tarmac Delay Indeed, BA was fined by the DoT as a result of a delay from EWR due to snow in 2014: BA DoT Fine.

You can also file a consumer complaint if you wish through that channel, Frankly this is not acceptable, and I see little recourse for either BA or the NJ Port Authority. I hope BA took care of you as best as they could in the circumstances. It's a shame that the duty manager at EWR let this happen (especially when considering the previous hefty fine). This is "USA Airlines Regulations 101".

In fairness, the BA examples which were given in a previous post were where a departing aircraft was at the gate and the passengers weren't given the opportunity to disembark during a long delay, as required by the regulations. Somewhat different from the situation described by the OP where the aircraft apparently couldn't even get to the terminal. The OP has said that a gate had apparently been forecast by the EWR controllers to be available within the 4 hr deadline, so it was hardly BA's fault if that was then removed at the last minute.
The problem with all these creeping delay situations where the resolution is outside the carrier's control is that the crew and ops department simply don't know how long the delay is going to be except with benefit of hindsight. The issue perhaps is whether BA had any option to disembark in the half hour window once the promised gate had been withdrawn, which would have met the 4hr deadline. I doubt whether at that stage a taxiway disembarkation in a snowstorm could have been quickly arranged, or indeed a safer and better option for the passengers, given the limited chances of getting baggage off as well amidst the chaos. Did BA then make all reasonable efforts to keep the passengers safe, watered & informed during the delay - the OP seems to accept that they did.
These things do occasionally happen if the tight choreography of stand planning at a busy airport already at limits on a normal day faces a situation where it has all the arrivals but no few or no departures - as we saw in extremis on 9/11,the alternative is closing the airspace and sending diversions all over the continent. It's terribly frustrating, but just occasionally in life it quite possibly isn't BA's fault!

I'm not sure that two drinks runs in 5.5 hours is really adequate!! The crew were good and the cockpit crew couldn't raise anyone. The lack of info originated from the airport who weren't answering anyone!
De-planing out on the taxiway i don't think was a (safe) option - we were not initially close to the gates and it would have taken a while. The temperatures during the delay climbed from -1 to +6 during the delay. There were vehicles everywhere and it would have been another drain on overstretched resources. Staying safe and warm on the aircraft was the best option - and yes it was 5.5 hours!!
I'm not claiming it was BA's fault and the crew were great. But more drinks and announcements would have been welcomed. The tactic of despatching aircraft to free some gates was correct and as the delay went on, the roar of a take off became more frequent!
I can't see how BA could be fined where they were clearley trying and the NJ Port Authority had clearly lost control of the airfield.

From where we were, I only saw wide body / long haul overseas airlines aircraft moving about and so I suspect the tap was turned off on short haul incomings, but the damage was international flights requiring certain piers for immigration and customs.

No EC 261/2004 because this fairly clearly fits the definition of "extraordinary circumstance". Even if this were a DOT Tarmac Rule violation, which it is not, that is not a bonanza for passengers, but a potential fine for the carrier.

Just for the sake of completeness, BA's specific commitment under the Tarmac Rule makes clear its parameters and, as in the DOT rule itself, the commitment to disembark is tempered by the obvious, e.g. that the PIC or airport ground control determine that it is unsafe to do so with available facilities.

The fact that the VS aircraft was prioritized for a BA-designated gate is a good example of the Rule at work. Longer tarmac time means that aircraft gets priority and Ground Control so directs.

I've had exactly the same in reverse ... JFK-LHR took 14 hours one winter's evening. We pushed back from the gate at 6.15pm and it was nearly 1am before we took off! No food or drinks were served in that time as the I think the captain expected us to clear to the front of the takeoff queue quite quickly, but then we had to be de-iced again (and again).

I missed my connection at LHR, of course :) And my bags took 3-4 days to catch up with me. And I don't recall getting any compensation at all.

I had one a few years back from EWR. De-iced twice before the flight was cancelled at about 1am after being on board 5 hours :rolleyes:

AA manage to find hotels fortunately, despite the snow! I flew back from PHL on BA the next day.

What does the aircraft do for power in these situations? I imagine that the engines would have been shut down and even the APU wouldn't last (or shouldn't be used) for 5.5hrs. With either APU or engines, would the plane not run out of fuel? Was it connected to a ground power unit and what happens when it has to go "around the block"?

Isn't there something completely morally wrong to claim compensation from someone when it is not their fault?

Nicc HK: I'd agree, and it's sad that we all seem to think "compensation!" as an almost knee-jerk reaction to any misfortune. I suspect it's partly because we have the privilege of living in an age where customers are generally well protected and we tend to take it for granted that things actually do go right 99% of the time. Perhaps when people believed in a deity or were a bit more in awe of the complexities of flying, they were more inclined to accept life's ups and downs as an "Act of God" or the "fickle finger of fate" and just shake a fist at the heavens?

However in some cases, responsibility does still attach even when there's no direct fault - for example, where BA has chosen to subcontract a service to a third party handing agent, caterer etc., the buck rightly cannot be passed. In this case, IMHO BA quite obviously has no control of who arranges the snowstorm or who allocates stand space when 2 into1 won't go, and there doesn't yet seem to be any argument that BA could have substantially improved the poor OP's outcome.

On the other hand there is a reason why EC261 was introduced. Mainly because airline management were incapable of treating customers fairly or doing the right thing when IRROPS occurred.

And the moment EC261 became law it invited ambulance chasing lawyers to get involved.

Today is the tip of the iceberg too....someone said on here recently that only 2% of people entitled to claim actually do. As soon as the PPI deadline is reached this may become a more popular area for the lawyers.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to attempt to claim compensation and have the rules allow or deny the claim as appropriate. The morality is irrelevant: the outcome is bound up in the rules and the situation and if the rules are wrong it is up to the legislators to correct them, not the moral compass of those the rules are intended to protect.

I find that a bit sad - I reckon your moral compass could do with bit of a swing! I know this is on a petty scale by comparison, but there have been too many times in recent history where people opted out of any moral responsibility and followed whatever the regulations allowed, however inappropriate. I'd prefer to think that most of us act on an instinctive perception of what's right or wrong and don't need to head straight to a rule book in these situations. In my years of travelling with BA, there are many occasions where they have done things for me which the rules didn't require - upgrades, kids' cockpit visits, or just a friendly chat, so it works both ways.
On the subject of EC261, I applaud the intention (as long as it is applied equally to rail, bus & ferry) but do occasionally wonder about the extra pressure on a ramp engineer in a near-bankrupt airline who knows that a tech delay might cost his employer 30 or 40k. As mentioned above, few people currently claim so I guess the effect is mitigated for the time being, however there seems to be a growing band of ambulance-chasers determined to skim a share by upping those claim figures - I see they're advertising on several of the flight tracking websites.