B6 504 EWR-FLL diverted to BDL, calling for police on board the aircraft
Nov 6, 2011, 11:07 am
#121
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: Delta skymiles DM + 1MM
Posts: 8,144
Nov 8, 2011, 1:40 pm
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,239
Because one airplane goes first and one get's stuck going last.
The first few airplanes to arrive were intending to refuel and depart. They were parked away from the terminal in anticipation of refueling and a quick departure. Flights that arrived later knew that they were staying so they ended up at the front of the line for deplaning due to their location.
The first few airplanes to arrive were intending to refuel and depart. They were parked away from the terminal in anticipation of refueling and a quick departure. Flights that arrived later knew that they were staying so they ended up at the front of the line for deplaning due to their location.
If the B6 planes had already been there for 3 hours and a newly-arriving plane was able to cut in front and unload promptly, someone at B6 clearly effed up. I realize they don't have direct control over what DLs aircraft do when they land, but they should have been on top of this with the airport ground control / operations.
Nov 8, 2011, 4:31 pm
#123
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 145
I still have a hard time understanding how 20+ other planes were able to unload in less than 3 hours while B6 had 3 planes there for over 6 hours. That's a pretty darn big performance gap.
If the B6 planes had already been there for 3 hours and a newly-arriving plane was able to cut in front and unload promptly, someone at B6 clearly effed up. I realize they don't have direct control over what DLs aircraft do when they land, but they should have been on top of this with the airport ground control / operations.
If the B6 planes had already been there for 3 hours and a newly-arriving plane was able to cut in front and unload promptly, someone at B6 clearly effed up. I realize they don't have direct control over what DLs aircraft do when they land, but they should have been on top of this with the airport ground control / operations.
Other airlines were attempting to get to a gate with no plans to take off.
When the B6 flights landed, they weren't landing because the weather was too bad to land elsewhere, they were landing because the equipment at the two other airports they had tried to land at was down. The aircraft that has been in the news most attempted a landing, pulled up once the ground equipment failed, and determined that rather than circling again and risking getting low on fuel, a diversion to a working airport was the best decision, since other aircraft in the area had announced that they were already low on fuel and would take priority.
After diverting, the initial plan was to land, refuel, and go back to their destinations. Once the power went out at the airport, they had to wait longer than planned to refuel, and during that time the aircraft became too boxed in to move without a tow. If they had gotten a tow in a reasonable time, the aircraft would have taken off and been one of the few to make it "home", since they had been granted a window of clearance to take off.
Nov 9, 2011, 6:28 pm
#124
Join Date: May 2008
Location: new york
Programs: trueblue ,mileageplus skymiles, hilton honors silver
Posts: 965
Thank you
I can understand why you have a hard time-- I didn't quite see the full picture from the press releases.
Other airlines were attempting to get to a gate with no plans to take off.
When the B6 flights landed, they weren't landing because the weather was too bad to land elsewhere, they were landing because the equipment at the two other airports they had tried to land at was down. The aircraft that has been in the news most attempted a landing, pulled up once the ground equipment failed, and determined that rather than circling again and risking getting low on fuel, a diversion to a working airport was the best decision, since other aircraft in the area had announced that they were already low on fuel and would take priority.
After diverting, the initial plan was to land, refuel, and go back to their destinations. Once the power went out at the airport, they had to wait longer than planned to refuel, and during that time the aircraft became too boxed in to move without a tow. If they had gotten a tow in a reasonable time, the aircraft would have taken off and been one of the few to make it "home", since they had been granted a window of clearance to take off.
Other airlines were attempting to get to a gate with no plans to take off.
When the B6 flights landed, they weren't landing because the weather was too bad to land elsewhere, they were landing because the equipment at the two other airports they had tried to land at was down. The aircraft that has been in the news most attempted a landing, pulled up once the ground equipment failed, and determined that rather than circling again and risking getting low on fuel, a diversion to a working airport was the best decision, since other aircraft in the area had announced that they were already low on fuel and would take priority.
After diverting, the initial plan was to land, refuel, and go back to their destinations. Once the power went out at the airport, they had to wait longer than planned to refuel, and during that time the aircraft became too boxed in to move without a tow. If they had gotten a tow in a reasonable time, the aircraft would have taken off and been one of the few to make it "home", since they had been granted a window of clearance to take off.
Nov 10, 2011, 12:25 pm
#125
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
I still have a hard time understanding how 20+ other planes were able to unload in less than 3 hours while B6 had 3 planes there for over 6 hours. That's a pretty darn big performance gap.
If the B6 planes had already been there for 3 hours and a newly-arriving plane was able to cut in front and unload promptly, someone at B6 clearly effed up. I realize they don't have direct control over what DLs aircraft do when they land, but they should have been on top of this with the airport ground control / operations.
If the B6 planes had already been there for 3 hours and a newly-arriving plane was able to cut in front and unload promptly, someone at B6 clearly effed up. I realize they don't have direct control over what DLs aircraft do when they land, but they should have been on top of this with the airport ground control / operations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...973595732.html
One of the commenters to the article asked about using ISP an alternate, and I think it brings something (else) to the forefront that many outside the industry don't readily consider. To designate an alternate for a destination, FAA regs (and common sense) dictate that the alternate has to have better weather (actual and forecasted) than the intended destination. If iSP was a viable alternate back on 10/29, I'm sure it was being used, but if it wasn't, people can safely assume that it wasn't being used, and ditto for other area airports. The overall scope and coverage of the approaching weather system undoubtedly limited the number of available alternates that had acceptable weather.
Finally, several folks have commented to the effect that "everyone knew the storm was coming" and while true in a general sense, the exact timing of its arrival at any particular airport or its severity isn't always as forecasted. If one is basing their selection of an alternate based on its forecast to be good at X-time, and subsequent to the arrival of diverted flights the weather suddenly craters to something much worse than was called for, well, stuff happens, and the NWS can't always predict what curveball Mother Nature will (or will not) throw you. Anyone ever have a picnic or other outdoor activity ruined by a bum forecast?
Again, not arbitrairly condoning 3+ hours on an aircraft, nor do I work for JBU, but just trying to respectfully point out that not every situation is as simple and predictable as many folks assume.
Nov 10, 2011, 1:32 pm
#126
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
In reading the article it certainly looked like multiple parties were at fault. And yes it would make sense that smaller airports have a coordinated policy with larger airports that may use them in the case of diversions. The problem with the three hour rule legislation is that it never forced airlines and airports to come up with a written policy and procedure for attending to stranded a/c on the tarmac. And such policy/procedure would have likely forced airports to have equipment such as movable stairs if gates were unavailable.
Nov 10, 2011, 3:58 pm
#127
Join Date: May 2008
Location: new york
Programs: trueblue ,mileageplus skymiles, hilton honors silver
Posts: 965
Stranded
In reading the article it certainly looked like multiple parties were at fault. And yes it would make sense that smaller airports have a coordinated policy with larger airports that may use them in the case of diversions. The problem with the three hour rule legislation is that it never forced airlines and airports to come up with a written policy and procedure for attending to stranded a/c on the tarmac. And such policy/procedure would have likely forced airports to have equipment such as movable stairs if gates were unavailable.
Nov 10, 2011, 8:58 pm
#128
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5
That makes too much sense and would require airports to spend more money on movable stairs. Perhaps the best solution would be to require B6 to buy the moveable stairts for BDL instead of the fine. This way passengers may benefit in the future, B6 gets fined and the only people who is unhappy is the government.
[At Bradley] Mobile stairs—commandeered from jetBlue—were used to get passengers off [international] planes.
[...]
Moreover, jetBlue never got to use the portable staircase it lined up to deplane passengers because it had been nabbed by the airport to get people off the international flights.
[...]
JetBlue says that Bradley was simply overwhelmed by too many diversions, and that its grounded flights were lower priority than bigger international planes.
[...]
Moreover, jetBlue never got to use the portable staircase it lined up to deplane passengers because it had been nabbed by the airport to get people off the international flights.
[...]
JetBlue says that Bradley was simply overwhelmed by too many diversions, and that its grounded flights were lower priority than bigger international planes.
Nov 11, 2011, 4:37 am
#129
Join Date: May 2008
Location: new york
Programs: trueblue ,mileageplus skymiles, hilton honors silver
Posts: 965
Yes
Its better than to pay a fine that will not be used to benefit passengers in the long term. In the long term, BDL should be avoided as a diversion airport as they are simply not equipped to handle the overflow. Now that some of the facts are coming in , B6 is not looking at bad as it seemed that day. The bottom line is that the government needs to blame someone and they cannot blame the airport or themselves.
Nov 11, 2011, 7:32 pm
#131
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
In reading the article it certainly looked like multiple parties were at fault. And yes it would make sense that smaller airports have a coordinated policy with larger airports that may use them in the case of diversions. The problem with the three hour rule legislation is that it never forced airlines and airports to come up with a written policy and procedure for attending to stranded a/c on the tarmac. And such policy/procedure would have likely forced airports to have equipment such as movable stairs if gates were unavailable.
Looks like DOT/FAA are taking some action:
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=13211
I think I may try to attend myself...
Nov 11, 2011, 10:13 pm
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,335
Yes, I believe B6 will paying fine from DOT/FAA. This is violations of the rules. They did not follow the rules. Those passengers who wanted to get off the plane right way and not try to stay onboard the aircraft for an hours. That's not good! They should disembarked from the aircraft. If the flight is being canceled due to bad weaather. If the airports is closed until the further notice. This should have right choice for those passengers who wanted go into the terminals.