Intl pax held 4 hours on 100-degree plane at BDL, more DHS and airline stupidity
Jun 23, 2010, 7:28 pm
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
You mean like the woman that TSA fined $2500 for "interfering with screening" because she dared to fight for medically necessary food for her grandmother? [Link] Haven't seen TSA back down on that one yet ...
Jun 23, 2010, 7:34 pm
#32
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Exactly where I want to be
Programs: IHG Gold,SPG Gold, HH Gold, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Delta Kettle, AMEX Plat, DL AMEX Plat
Posts: 1,435
Basic question here: why did they not open the non-emergency exits to allow some air circulation? I've been on two flights that were stuck for more than 2 hours (Hawaii back on the day the earthquake hit in 2006 and another on back in 1996 on the way to Hawaii - stuck in SFO waiting for a crew replacement). In each case, flight crew opened up some of the doors. It did help.
Jun 23, 2010, 8:16 pm
#33
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
The problem with passengers today is that they are just not willing to take matters into their own hands. I am however, very surprised and disappointed that a British captain did not take the action necessary to provide his passengers with a safe and comfortable environment.
IMO, the passengers should have activated the emergency exits and demanded to either be let into the terminal, or taken to a Police Station (with air conditioning). If the American cops started behaving like pigs, the next step should have been for the passengers to get seriously ill and request a transfer to a hospital. If the coppah's refused, taking their names and threatening to tie them up personally in court for years, by say, filing a false claim on their family home, which would cost them many thousands of dollars over many years would have been an effective means to coerce them into doing the right thing.
IMO, the passengers should have activated the emergency exits and demanded to either be let into the terminal, or taken to a Police Station (with air conditioning). If the American cops started behaving like pigs, the next step should have been for the passengers to get seriously ill and request a transfer to a hospital. If the coppah's refused, taking their names and threatening to tie them up personally in court for years, by say, filing a false claim on their family home, which would cost them many thousands of dollars over many years would have been an effective means to coerce them into doing the right thing.
Jun 23, 2010, 8:50 pm
#34
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Although I haven't finished scanning the DOT rule it does specifically address U.S. carriers operating international flights:
With regard to the international flights of U.S. carriers, while we
understand the concerns about applying hard time limits on deplaning
passengers on international flights because of the different
environment in which those flights operate, we believe that it is still
important to ensure that passengers on international flights are also
afforded protection from unreasonably lengthy tarmac delays. Therefore,
we have decided to apply the requirement to develop and implement a
contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays to both the domestic and
international flights of each U.S. carrier operating any aircraft with
30 or more passenger seats. This requirement applies to U.S. carriers
even if they operate only international scheduled or charter service.
However, we have arrived at more flexible requirements with regard
to the content of the contingency plans for a U.S. carrier's
international flight (i.e., flexibility to determine the time limit to
deplane passengers on tarmac) as compared to its domestic flights,
recognizing that international flights operate less frequently than
most domestic flights, potentially resulting in much greater harm to
consumers if carriers cancel these international flights. Although
carriers are free to establish their own tarmac delay time limits for
international flights, and even to have different limits for different
specified situations, these limits must be included in each carrier's
contingency plan--they are not to be ad hoc decisions made during the
course of a flight delay.
An international flight for purposes of this requirement is a
nonstop flight segment that takes off in the United States and lands in
another country, or vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic technical
stops. For example, if a U.S. carrier operates a direct flight Chicago-
New York-Frankfurt, with some Chicago-originating passengers destined
for New York and others destined for Frankfurt, and the aircraft
experiences a tarmac delay in Chicago, then we would consider the
tarmac delay to be on a domestic flight. This is because Chicago-New
York is a domestic flight segment even though the final destination of
the flight is Frankfurt, Germany. If, on the other hand, the aircraft
only stops for refueling or a crew change in New York and the airline
carries no Chicago-New York traffic, then we would consider the tarmac
delay in Chicago to be a tarmac delay on an international flight.
understand the concerns about applying hard time limits on deplaning
passengers on international flights because of the different
environment in which those flights operate, we believe that it is still
important to ensure that passengers on international flights are also
afforded protection from unreasonably lengthy tarmac delays. Therefore,
we have decided to apply the requirement to develop and implement a
contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays to both the domestic and
international flights of each U.S. carrier operating any aircraft with
30 or more passenger seats. This requirement applies to U.S. carriers
even if they operate only international scheduled or charter service.
However, we have arrived at more flexible requirements with regard
to the content of the contingency plans for a U.S. carrier's
international flight (i.e., flexibility to determine the time limit to
deplane passengers on tarmac) as compared to its domestic flights,
recognizing that international flights operate less frequently than
most domestic flights, potentially resulting in much greater harm to
consumers if carriers cancel these international flights. Although
carriers are free to establish their own tarmac delay time limits for
international flights, and even to have different limits for different
specified situations, these limits must be included in each carrier's
contingency plan--they are not to be ad hoc decisions made during the
course of a flight delay.
An international flight for purposes of this requirement is a
nonstop flight segment that takes off in the United States and lands in
another country, or vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic technical
stops. For example, if a U.S. carrier operates a direct flight Chicago-
New York-Frankfurt, with some Chicago-originating passengers destined
for New York and others destined for Frankfurt, and the aircraft
experiences a tarmac delay in Chicago, then we would consider the
tarmac delay to be on a domestic flight. This is because Chicago-New
York is a domestic flight segment even though the final destination of
the flight is Frankfurt, Germany. If, on the other hand, the aircraft
only stops for refueling or a crew change in New York and the airline
carries no Chicago-New York traffic, then we would consider the tarmac
delay in Chicago to be a tarmac delay on an international flight.
References
DOT rule: Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
S.213 Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2009
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Jun 23, 2010, 9:50 pm
#36
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Isn't this interesting? A CBS affiliate reports this ...
... but the NBC affiliate linked by the OP reports this:
So which is it -- flight delay of one hour or two, for ~security~ reasons or mechanical ones? Methinks some real whoppers were fed both to pax and news outlets.
After an hour's delay, the team's London to Newark flight on Virgin Atlantic finally took off Tuesday. Apparently two passengers who were supposed to be on the plane could not be found, so authorities had to search for their luggage.
Even before the flight left Heathrow Airport, there were problems. The generators were not working, so neither was the air conditioning system, passengers said. The flight was supposed to leave at 5:33 p.m., London time. Two hours later, with the plane fixed, the flight took off for Newark.
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 23, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Jun 23, 2010, 9:56 pm
#37
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39
Isn't this interesting? A CBS affiliate reports this ...
... but the NBC affiliate linked by the OP reports this:
So which is it -- flight delay of one hour or two, for ~security~ reasons or mechanical ones? Methinks some real whoppers are being fed both to pax and news outlets.
... but the NBC affiliate linked by the OP reports this:
So which is it -- flight delay of one hour or two, for ~security~ reasons or mechanical ones? Methinks some real whoppers are being fed both to pax and news outlets.
The majority of the news being reported on major networks are not even fact-checked before being aired.
Jun 23, 2010, 9:57 pm
#38
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
• a flat sum cash payout per pax of, say, $500 to cover incidentals caused by the 'inconvenience'.
How is a reporter supposed to verify whether the airline or a particular pax says is the bottom line truth without blowing deadline? Answer: It's not possible. Especially with developing stories, journalists report what they understand to be the case to the best of their knowledge at a given point in time.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jun 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Jun 23, 2010, 10:26 pm
#39
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
The flight was scheduled to reach Newark at 9:10 p.m. on Tuesday. Nearly 12 hours later, at about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, passengers finally began boarding buses en route to Newark Airport.
Why did the passengers have to go by bus ? No legal cabin crew I assume, although I imagine they were on board.
See above; that information is available in real time or about 5 minutes thereafter. But one does have to know where to look and bother to do so.
Jun 23, 2010, 10:39 pm
#40
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,958
Jun 23, 2010, 10:42 pm
#41
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
For four hours, they sat on the plane, sweating, frustrated and tired. During the ordeal, pilots exceeded their maximum flight time and the plane had to stay grounded so after all that, the passengers still couldn't reach their Newark destination.
Now what about the cause of the outbound delay?
Last edited by essxjay; Jun 23, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Jun 24, 2010, 7:03 am
#43
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
From the OP's link:Touché on the time count. Now what about the cause of the outbound delay?
For four hours, they sat on the plane, sweating, frustrated and tired. During the ordeal, pilots exceeded their maximum flight time and the plane had to stay grounded so after all that, the passengers still couldn't reach their Newark destination.
Now what about the cause of the outbound delay?
.I don't know who flew the empty VIR1P out next morning. If it was a complete replacement crew then they could have taken the passengers, so I'm assuming it was the same crew. A positioning flight doesn't have the same legal hours requirement perhaps; I don't know but maybe someone else does ?