SDF_Traveler

Pressurization of the cabin does not take place on the ground.

Aircraft are generally pressurized to 8000 ft ASL. This does not happen in Atlanta, which is aprox 1000 ft above sea level, nor does it happen in Denver, at ~5300 ft ASL. Aircraft pressurization happens after the aircraft is airborne.

FWIW, there are some unique procedures used for very high altitude airports (take La Paz, Bolivia, as an example).

Even after an aircraft has been in contact with ramp control and delivery - ground-control, they can still return to the gate. The FAA/ATC is not who determines if an aircraft can pull back into the jetway, have the slides disarmed and door opened back up into the jetway.

Granted, the above is typically used when a mechanical problem surfaces after push (or if someone needs to be unloaded), it can and is done. On the rare occasion, I have been on an aircraft where we have returned to the gate to pick up late connecting pax. It does happen, but rarely.

In a case like this, company operations makes the decision - not the GA.

The aircraft, once airborne and underway is still under the care and control of the carrier (and pilots). If a diversion (i.e. low fuel) is required or if the company requests something such as a "flag stop", the pilots then make a request to ATC.

I do feel airlines, some more than others, in general, can do a better job at accommodating late arriving connecting pax - especially if we're only taking a few minutes here. Problem is airlines are under pressure for on-time departures and arrivals. DL's stats are terrible at the moment (excluding NWA), but I suspect much of it, for DL at least, revolves around JFK.

On a final note, GA's are under a lot of pressure to get a flight out on-time -- to the point where I've had GA's start boarding prematurely to get the boarding process going.

On one recent flight, I boarded an ASA jet with no FA on-board -- a HUGE no-no -- FA quickly boarded and told us we were not supposed to be on the plane. I mentioned to the FA, as did other pax, that the GA boarded us, after which there was a heated exchange between the FA and GA.

In some other cases, FA's had just boarded, the aircraft was still being cleaned by the cleaning crews - or waiting to be cleaned, the aircraft was not catered, and FA's were not ready for pax, but the GA started the boarding procedure anyways. This puts the FA's, cleaning crews, and pax in an awkward position.

I don't know about DL, but I do know of a carrier where GA's will have a lot of explaining to do if they board a flight late. Based on recent experiences, it's obvious DL GA's are under significant pressure by DL management for on-time boardings & departures. An announcement was said over the PA on a flight last month, indicating that if "I" have to go back there to assist with carry-ons, I'll be removing you from the flight -- I don't know if this was an FA or the GA on the intercom, but

Like other carriers, DL can really do a great job and does most of the time.. but there are times when this is not the case.

SDF_Traveler

MSP is a great hub, just really messed up at the moment with the runway construction.

If a primary runway at ATL went out of service, such as 27R/9L or 26R/8L, they'd be facing problems too.

Once the runway project is fixed at MSP, it should be back to the norm, which is pretty good IME.

If you want to talk about a hub having a flight load the hub can't handle, look no further than JFK. While the schedules are padded, one of my biggest beefs is the dysfunctional state of DL's T2/T3 complex.

If DL can fix and upgrade the JFK T2/T3 complex, they'd have a much better operation, aside from the ATC / traffic issues at JFK... (where I should note a major runway project is pending).

I'll take MSP anytime over JFK, even with MSP's construction.

took

And so, let the customer look elsewhere....I think most of the customers here are not unhappy with the service (and its limitations).

elitetraveler

+1 Same in the AA forum IMHO

Robert Leach

I understand all the arguments about "once the door is closed, the door is closed" and "once the paperwork is done, the flight is closed", etc.

But I have to say that, in my most humble opinion, with 10 minutes to spare and a connecting passenger standing there, this would have been a situation where exceptional effort could have gotten the door open, the passenger boarded, the paperwork reprinted, and the flight departed essentially on time.

If you're a "premier" legacy carrier, you have to do something to differentiate yourself from discount buses-in-the-sky. What actions taken in this situation do this? You've got a mechanical first, then a luggage delay, then a sprint across a huge connecting airport, all for naught.

If the airlines never delayed a flight for their reasons, then I guess it would be fair to never delay a flight, even to a minimal degree, for a customer. But we all know that flights get delayed all the time because the airline didn't have its act together, yet somehow the entire system doesn't collapse because of this.

Forgive me for swimming against the tide of opinion in this case, but all things considered, I'm with the OP on this one.

exwannabe

So let's follow through on what you say.

At T -10 min the seats of no shows have not yet been given away, yes or no?

If yes then in order to board the OP I guess you plan on kicking pax off the plane, which insures a very late departure (even w/o being international)

If no, then we must assume for every flight the standby pax and upgrade hopefulls are at the gate still waiting at the 10 minute mark.

So no flight will ever leave on time if any pax is a no-show. Great, we will all mis forward connections much more often.

Sorry, you are dead wrong about the GA action.

I do agree with several sympathetic points towards the OP though. Flying up that morning was reasonable unless it was VERY important (and an AC/DC concert is not, regardless of ones music taste). It would have been good CS is somebody (maybe with OPs help) could have contacted the gate to say a IROPS pax was late. Maybe of no use, but would be nice.

BUT, the GA and crew at the new gate were NOT at fault here.

jeff30189

Lets add some fuel to the fire, shall we? I'll post this later in a separate thread, but I'm about to illustrate why I'm so disgusted and frustrated with how this situation was handled (even if the GA was technically "right"). btw, I'm PM with Delta in 6 of the past 10 years and will make DM for 2010.

I am in the middle of a mileage run from PHX-SLC-PHL-ATL-PHX. I arrive to PHL on time to find out that my PHL-ATL leg is cancelled (by air traffic control, according to the Delta Customer Service Supervisor). They have rebooked me on the earlier PHL-ATL flight.

Here's the interesting part. My flight landed in PHL at 4:00 PM. The "earlier flight" to ATL was scheduled to take off at 3:30PM. They HELD THE PLANE for me. Kept the door open, knew I was connecting there, knew my itinerary, knew I did not have checked baggage, etc. (I asked the GA meeting the flight in PHL all of this as she was pushing me along the concourse to the waiting GA for the ATL flight.) In other words, they checked all the things that the employees at MSP could have done and then they went one step further and held the plane for a connecting passenger.

I got on, sat down in under 30 seconds, they shut the door, we took off (and yes, I got alot of angry glares because I'm sure Delta just made alot of connections pretty tight).

So all of you naysayers out there - can you explain how the identical situation was handled in two completely opposite ways? IMHO it supports my original gripe that MSP should have and could have done more within the boundaries of their discretion, as proved by my trip today to PHL and back.

Evan!

We don't even know if there was a seat for the OP to take. It wouldn't be as quick as one might think to re-open the door and let him on. The assumption is that he would simply march to his unoccupied seat and they'd be off. If there are no seats then someone will have to be removed. There's explanation time. Argument time. DYKWIA time. And carry-on gathering time. Then we'd have a thread were someone is irate because NW didn't follow the 10 minute rule and made them give up their seat.

+1

Bago'peanuts

Oddly, I heard the same exact thing muttered recently, and it was muttered by the lead FA. Perhaps the FA manual has been rewritten.

Pharaoh

I'm not saying nay, nor yea, but you cannot declare this an "identical situation" because you have no knowledge of the story behind the gate door.

A myriad of operational events locally and at your destination airport (ATC, airspace utilization, aircraft utilization, crew scheduling, weather ... I could go on and on) will present quite different operational parameters for the flight.

As but one possibility, you said your originally scheduled flight was cancelled by ATC (I will not get into the rarity of this). But assuming that really happens it could imply congestion or other airspace anomaly. I would thus not be surprised if your "earlier" flight was on an extended gate hold. In which case there was no pressure for them not to wait for you.

What really happened, and why, we do not know. What we do know is that you can establish little equivalence between one apocryphal story and a second.

goaliemn

I also wanted to add that YYZ has a very early and strictly enforced curfew. I don't know how close to curfew that last flight does land.

elitetraveler

This sounds strange. I think CX used to have a flight that departed around midnite or even 1 pm. I do think YYZ curfews may have referred to Stage type (noise emissions).

goaliemn

There is a noise abatement procedure based on state type, but there is a total curfew as well.
from the boeing website