47 CO Pax Imprisoned Overnight on Stinky E145 @ Rochester, MN
Aug 10, 2009, 7:45 am
#136
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spencer Iowa USA
Programs: Long Live NWA Silver Elite,Delta Silver Medallion
Posts: 604
That's the real issue..
This situation will repeat itself over and over as long as the airlines are more afraid of sanctions from the FAA than legal actions from the passengers. I was "trapped" on a NWA flight many, many years ago (like 1985) going from MSP to LAX that diverted to Ontario. I think the total time I was on that flight was roughly 12 hours.
Almost 25 years later, the airlines appear no more able to handle diversions. The FAA regs wouldn't let us off the plane in Ontario until buses from LA arrived to take us to LA.
Passenger Bill of Rights? The feds are the co-conspirators in this problem and will make a Bill of Rights a joke until they are brought to the table.
Michael
Almost 25 years later, the airlines appear no more able to handle diversions. The FAA regs wouldn't let us off the plane in Ontario until buses from LA arrived to take us to LA.
Passenger Bill of Rights? The feds are the co-conspirators in this problem and will make a Bill of Rights a joke until they are brought to the table.
Michael
Aug 10, 2009, 8:42 am
#137
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Originally Posted by Today in the Sky Blog
<SNIP> But in a Sunday interview with the Post-Bulletin of Rochester, Rochester International Airport manager Steve Leqve tells the paper there's no reason the passengers had to stay on the plane. "They wouldn't have had to go through security. They could have come into the airport," he tells the paper. He adds that he’s looking into the matter – one that sounds like it could lead to finger-pointing among the involved parties.
For starters, Continental referred all questions on Continental Flight 2816 to ExpressJet, which operated the flight as a regional flight under the Continental logo. With that, the Star Tribune notes ExpressJet's Nicholas "said the flight ran into several problems," including the carrier's initial explanation about TSA screeners being needed to let passengers off the plane.
Rochester airport manager Leqve says passengers on the stranded Continental/ExpressJet flight "certainly could have come into the gate. That is not problem as far as the airport is concerned. However, that is really an airline function." To that point, ExpressJet's Nicholas tells the Post-Bulletin that the airport's ground services personnel did not make that option available.
That's not the end of it. Adding to the problems for the passengers on Continental Flight 2816: Continental does not serve Rochester, Minn. And, according to the Post-Bulletin, cooperation with Delta – which does fly to the airport – may have been yet another issue. Leqve tells the Post-Bulletin: "They (ExpressJet/Continental) had to work out something with Delta," presumably for access to a gate. "I do know there were talks between them and Delta," Leqve adds. The Post-Bulletin followed up by contacting Delta. Delta spokeswoman Leslie Parker tells the paper: "Continental was in control of the situation the whole time. I have to refer questions to Continental."
For starters, Continental referred all questions on Continental Flight 2816 to ExpressJet, which operated the flight as a regional flight under the Continental logo. With that, the Star Tribune notes ExpressJet's Nicholas "said the flight ran into several problems," including the carrier's initial explanation about TSA screeners being needed to let passengers off the plane.
Rochester airport manager Leqve says passengers on the stranded Continental/ExpressJet flight "certainly could have come into the gate. That is not problem as far as the airport is concerned. However, that is really an airline function." To that point, ExpressJet's Nicholas tells the Post-Bulletin that the airport's ground services personnel did not make that option available.
That's not the end of it. Adding to the problems for the passengers on Continental Flight 2816: Continental does not serve Rochester, Minn. And, according to the Post-Bulletin, cooperation with Delta – which does fly to the airport – may have been yet another issue. Leqve tells the Post-Bulletin: "They (ExpressJet/Continental) had to work out something with Delta," presumably for access to a gate. "I do know there were talks between them and Delta," Leqve adds. The Post-Bulletin followed up by contacting Delta. Delta spokeswoman Leslie Parker tells the paper: "Continental was in control of the situation the whole time. I have to refer questions to Continental."
Aug 10, 2009, 9:43 am
#138
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,137
would be interesting to see who ExpressJet, Continental, the Airport authority (at least one guard was around the PAX area) and even Delta tried to finger-point at.
Aug 10, 2009, 9:58 am
#139
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: OMA
Programs: UA
Posts: 322
CO is responsible for all ground operations, I just found this in XJ's annual report:
The way I read that is quite simply that CO does manage all ground operations, though they do subcontract that to XJ in some cases, it is pretty clear CO is "managing" it, as is repeatedly mentioned in those quotes. That would imply to me that if an XJ plane is diverted, since CO "manages" all ground operations, they should be managing the ground operations at the airport that was diverted to.
I think the paragraph before the one you quoted in the annual report is more relevant to this situation.
Under Airlines’ master facility and ground handling agreement with Continental, Airlines (Expressjet) is entitled to use these facilities to fulfill its obligations under the Continental CPA.
Aug 10, 2009, 10:00 am
#140
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL Diamond, B6 Mosaic, AS MPV Gold, UA Gold MM, Marriott Plat, SPG Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite
Posts: 16,679
Just posted on Continental's new Twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/continental
Re: CO Express 2816 we’re working w/ExpressJet. Svc unacceptable. We’re apologizing to customers, will give refunds & vouchers 4 future tvl
Aug 10, 2009, 10:07 am
#141
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Aug 10, 2009, 10:18 am
#142
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ACT/GRK/DAL/ABI/MIA/FLL
Programs: OMNIArchist, OMNIArchy!, OMNIIDGAS
Posts: 23,478
Aug 10, 2009, 10:20 am
#143
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
IMHO, CO is absolutely liable for this incident. ExpressJet is contracted by CO to crew and fly the e145s (which CO owns and leases to XJ), they follow CO service standards and are subject to CO operational considerations (CO will cancel XJ flights in WX/ATC situations to make way for important mainline flights).
If it were a Delta flight operated by CO, then that would be different entirely. But the flight is fully integrated into the CO Operation. I think that the folks in Congress or at least the FAA/DOT need to declare that the mainline carrier is responsible for the actions of its subordinate express carriers. I think you'd have a lot better oversight by the mainline carriers, and perhaps disasters such as Colgan wouldn't happen as frequently.
If it were a Delta flight operated by CO, then that would be different entirely. But the flight is fully integrated into the CO Operation. I think that the folks in Congress or at least the FAA/DOT need to declare that the mainline carrier is responsible for the actions of its subordinate express carriers. I think you'd have a lot better oversight by the mainline carriers, and perhaps disasters such as Colgan wouldn't happen as frequently.
Aug 10, 2009, 10:21 am
#144
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PDX
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat
Posts: 11,500
I'm guessing the post on Twitter is a precursor to a press release.
Aug 10, 2009, 10:34 am
#145
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Aug 10, 2009, 10:39 am
#146
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,377
The other sad thing is that the two airports are only separated by about 75 miles.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour....22699&t=h&z=9
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour....22699&t=h&z=9
Aug 10, 2009, 10:40 am
#147
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 108
IMHO, CO is absolutely liable for this incident. ExpressJet is contracted by CO to crew and fly the e145s (which CO owns and leases to XJ), they follow CO service standards and are subject to CO operational considerations (CO will cancel XJ flights in WX/ATC situations to make way for important mainline flights).
Plus, whether CO or XJ is responsible or not, it's a Continental branded plane, with a Continental branded boarding pass, more than likely either sold on Continental's website, or on a site such as Orbitz as a Continental flight, with crew wearing Continental uniforms announcing something along the lines of "Thank you for flying Continental" at the beginning of the flight. CO can pass the buck all they want, but the 47 people on that flight aren't telling their friends and family "I'm never flying on an ExpressJet flight ever again." They're telling them "I'm never flying on a Continental flight ever again" and probably encouraging them to do the same. Whether they like it or not, CO owns this.
Aug 10, 2009, 11:13 am
#148
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PBI
Programs: DL 2.8 MM/PM, AA MM/GLD, Marriott LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,746
The other sad thing is that the two airports are only separated by about 75 miles.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour....22699&t=h&z=9
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour....22699&t=h&z=9
That is why I am baffled that the passengers were willing to reboard the next morning. I would have rented a car or talked a couple other passengers into sharing a cab to MSP....
Aug 10, 2009, 11:39 am
#150
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: EWR
Programs: Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Gold (Current Platinum), United Mileage Plus, Avis Preferred
Posts: 850
I have still not seen an acceptable explanation to describe why TSA presence was required for deplaning. Presumably, all of the passengers and crew were screened at IAH and they were deplaning into a secure area. I do not see any risk requiring a TSA presence.
Even if the checkpoint is closed and unmanned isn't the terminal still secure? Presumably, when the TSA departs, the checkpoint is closed. So no one can enter the terminal b/c they cannot be screened, but anyone can leave. So if the COEX passengers had left the terminal, they could not have returned airside until the TSA presence was re-established at the checkpoint.
I always thought that the terminal is always secure, and that TSA is needed to screen entering passengers. No TSA, no entering passengers. I just don't see how the TSA was a factor in all of this.
Even if the checkpoint is closed and unmanned isn't the terminal still secure? Presumably, when the TSA departs, the checkpoint is closed. So no one can enter the terminal b/c they cannot be screened, but anyone can leave. So if the COEX passengers had left the terminal, they could not have returned airside until the TSA presence was re-established at the checkpoint.
I always thought that the terminal is always secure, and that TSA is needed to screen entering passengers. No TSA, no entering passengers. I just don't see how the TSA was a factor in all of this.