jkhuggins

Look, this doesn't have to be complicated. When TSA shuts down the checkpoint and goes home, everyone inside the concourse has been screened. As long as no-one else enters the concourse from the outside before TSA shows up again, the area is secure. Anyone can leave the concourse; they just can't come back in. All you need is a rent-a-cop standing at the checkpoint exit to make sure that nobody comes back in.

So, back to the original point. Mesaba denied the plane permission to park at a gate because putting the passengers into the terminal would violate security. Poppycock. All the passengers on the plane had been screened. Putting screened passengers into the secure area doesn't violate anything.

And when the RJ's discharge passengers onto the tarmac, the door to the terminal is guaranteed to be open, and there are plenty of airline personnel around to make sure that nobody wanders off and gets into trouble. In the scenario being discussed, neither of those is necessarily true.

Excuuuuuuuse me? Show me one post where I advocated passenger abuse.

All I'm saying is that popping the door and dumping everyone onto the tarmac isn't necessarily a better scenario than the hell they had to endure on-board the aircraft. It's very easy for us to sit here and play armchair-pilot after the fact, when the choices may not have been so easy.

And all of this is moot if someone at Mesaba had enough of a brain to open the frakking gate and let the passengers off in the first place.

Oxb

Unscreened pizzas in the terminal!! It is a wonder that there was not a disaster.

NY-FLA

Well, that's certainly a way of doing it, but I've never seen it. Airports I've been at during late hours don't use "rent a cops", they either 1) use airline contractors, most assuredly not rent a cops or any other form of security personnel, for that matter, or 2) have the regular TSA or private security (faux TSA) at the airport 24/7.

Well, it takes two posts, but they would be #217 and #221 where you surmise that putting pax onto the tarmac might be a problem because terminal doors might be locked, and maybe no-one would come to open the doors, and pax might wander away on the tarmac and create a "security breach". You piled so many mights and maybes on there to reach your postulated "breach" that the only option left in your construct would be to keep pax on the plane. And to me, (and apparently everyone else) keeping pax on the plane in these circumstances is clearly abuse.
It's ironic that, although you probably apply more and better rationale than the Mesaba employee did, when faced with an off-normal hypothetical, your security uber-al perspective leads to just as horrible a result for the pax.

jkhuggins

First: I agree that those passengers were abused. All I'm saying is that dumping the passengers onto the tarmac might've also been deemed abuse. Maybe it would've been the better course of action, maybe not. It's easy for us to analyze it sitting in our comfy chairs after a good night's sleep.

And perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. The bigger problem with passengers wandering the tarmac isn't some paranoia about "they might cause a problem", but "they might hurt themselves". All you need is someone saying "gee, I wonder what this lever does?" and now you've got yourselves the potential for physical harm. And that's if you're lucky enough to notice it. (Remember the foolish TSI who decided that climbing on the temperature probes of an aircraft at MDW was harmless?)

Anyways ... all this distracts from the real issue. If the @#$! running the Mesaba operation at RST lets the passengers off the plane, this entire hypothetical disappears.

Mikey likes it

I didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone call the police to explain that they had been kidnapped?

EasternTraveler

I read the thread. I looked at the airport. I listen to the released recordings. Here is what I find:

1. There are four jet bridges at the airport. (were they all occupied)
2. There are two airlines DL and AA. (why didn't they talk to AA)
3. The expressjet coordinator did not communicate any urgency to the mesaba employee.
4. The expressjet coordinator did not ask if all of the gates were taken.
5. The expressjet coordinator did not ask for the employees manager.
6. The expressjet coordinator did not ask for the phone of airport security or the airport manager.
7. The expressjet coordinator did not ask if they had jet stairs available.
8. The expressjet coordinator did not ask for contact numbers to TSA or signature.
9. The expressjet coordinator did not say "we need to deplane now."
10. The expressjet coordinator wanted to get the same pilots back into the air, even though she had already elluded to the fact that they were very tired.
11. The expressjet coordinator, captain and mesaba employee used the word dead too much.

EasternTraveler

I would not have wanted to fly with that crew any further. They were tired and needed to be replaced.

The captain did say that they needed to deplane. Apparently she needed to scream it, for him to get the message.

The express jet coordinator did not appear to be concerned about the safety of passengers and crew, only getting the flight gone to the next airport.

The express jet said "No one is willing to help us." So there is only one employee at Rochester at night and that lone employee that is in charge of security, facilities, gates, aircraft movement and control is a single Mesaba employee! Yes you talked to everyone alright.

That one Mesaba employee needs to learn to escalate things to management in irrops.

That express jet coordinator needs to learn communications skills, direction and priorities.

Based on the current available information, I would put the blame on the express jet coordinator.

whirledtraveler

It is an interesting legal question... I read all the time that the pilot has authority/responsibility over an aircraft due to Federal law, but police have jurisdiction in cities, counties, etc.

Could a police officer arrest a pilot who is in the cockpit, on the ground, for disobeying a lawful order like, say, letting people out of a plane?

RoadVeteran

I believe the blame should be spread as follows.

1. The Mesaba employee who refused to let passengers into the terminal because TSA had already left. She should also be nominated for "dumbass of the year" for believing that passengers who are already screened cannot be given access to the secure side of the terminal. If she had not been so stupid and misinformed as it seems and the pax were allowed in, then most of this would have gone away without too much attention given to it in the press.

I hope she gets some much deserved time off WITHOUT PAY^.

2. ExpressJet coordinator, sounded much to submissive and not anwhere near agressive enough.

3. The Captain, she should not completly escape blame, there were options open to her, some might say extreme measures, but is holding passengers hostage on an RJ with no working toliet, very little if any food or water, crying infants not extreme?

4. ExpressJet for not having a better plan in place for dealing with offline diversions and lengthy tarmac delays.

5. Continental for not having better oversight on ExpressJet and their plans for offline diversions.

Upper management at both Expressjet and Continental should have been notified and brought into the "loop" when it became clear that nothing was working successfully in getting the hostages freed from their aircraft.

I do not know, just guessing, but a couple of well placed calls in the middle of the night from Larry Kellner or the ExpressJet ceo might have helped resolve this more quickly.