U.S. Limits Tarmac Waits for Passengers to Three Hours
Dec 21, 2009, 10:50 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: FLL. AA PLT 2.7MM, UA Gold MM, Delta Gold Medallion & Lifetime SC, Hilton GVIP, SGP, Hertz 5 Star
Posts: 961
U.S. Limits Tarmac Waits for Passengers to Three Hours
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...trandings.html
Associated Press
December 21, 2009
The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories, orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes to deplane after three hours.
With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in Rochester, Minn., last summer.
Under the new regulations, airlines operating domestic flights will be able only to keep passengers on board for three hours before they must be allowed to disembark a delayed flight. The regulation provides exceptions only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.
U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers.
Airlines will be required to provide food and water for passengers within two hours of a plane being delayed on a tarmac, and to maintain operable lavatories. They must also provide passengers with medical attention when necessary.
Associated Press
December 21, 2009
The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories, orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes to deplane after three hours.
With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in Rochester, Minn., last summer.
Under the new regulations, airlines operating domestic flights will be able only to keep passengers on board for three hours before they must be allowed to disembark a delayed flight. The regulation provides exceptions only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.
U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers.
Airlines will be required to provide food and water for passengers within two hours of a plane being delayed on a tarmac, and to maintain operable lavatories. They must also provide passengers with medical attention when necessary.
Dec 21, 2009, 10:53 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,721
Beat me to it!
Finally a passenger bill of rights for passengers flying in the USA. ^ ^ ^ No longer can you be held hostage by (pick one or more) incompetent airline personnel, incompetent ATC, incompetent airport staff. Sad that this took 10 years since the bad snow storms of 1999 as many thousands have suffered. Ray Hood and Kate Hanni deserve our eternal gratitude.
Finally a passenger bill of rights for passengers flying in the USA. ^ ^ ^ No longer can you be held hostage by (pick one or more) incompetent airline personnel, incompetent ATC, incompetent airport staff. Sad that this took 10 years since the bad snow storms of 1999 as many thousands have suffered. Ray Hood and Kate Hanni deserve our eternal gratitude.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:07 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: FLL. AA PLT 2.7MM, UA Gold MM, Delta Gold Medallion & Lifetime SC, Hilton GVIP, SGP, Hertz 5 Star
Posts: 961
Ruling also affects unrealistic scheduling
"Airlines will also be prohibited from scheduling chronically delayed flights. Carriers who fail to comply could face government enforcement action for using unfair or deceptive trade practices.
"The new regulations, which were published Monday in the Federal Register, go into effect in 120 days."
It's about time!
"The new regulations, which were published Monday in the Federal Register, go into effect in 120 days."
It's about time!
Dec 21, 2009, 11:07 am
#5
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
Be careful what one asks for, double edged sword
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261...o&mod=yahoo_hs
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
The simple solution is to cncl the flight after 2 hours, to ensure enough time to return to a gate to avoid the fine. Which is worse..I guess that depends on your need to get somewhere. Those that need to get places will regret this, those who think that airlines do it on purpose will think it is a good measure.
Crews will be less likely to pull out of the gate in hopes of getting a takeoff slot as well, adding to delays and cncls also.
Also, gates will not become available as often in bad wx, resulting in longer "penalty box" waits.
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
The simple solution is to cncl the flight after 2 hours, to ensure enough time to return to a gate to avoid the fine. Which is worse..I guess that depends on your need to get somewhere. Those that need to get places will regret this, those who think that airlines do it on purpose will think it is a good measure.
Crews will be less likely to pull out of the gate in hopes of getting a takeoff slot as well, adding to delays and cncls also.
Also, gates will not become available as often in bad wx, resulting in longer "penalty box" waits.
Last edited by fastair; Dec 21, 2009 at 11:14 am
Dec 21, 2009, 11:12 am
#6
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Too many
Programs: Lots
Posts: 5,761
What a bizarre threat. One would think the "solution" would be to do everything possible to get the plane to the destination or, if not possible, just return to the gate to allow passengers the opportunity to get there via other means.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:15 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261...o&mod=yahoo_hs
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
The simple solution is to cncl the flight after 2 hours, to ensure enough time to return to a gate to avoid the fine. Which is worse..I guess that depends on your need to get somewhere. Those that need to get places will regret this, those who think that airlines do it on purpose will think it is a good measure.
Crews will be less likely to pull out of the gate in hopes of getting a takeoff slot as well, adding to delays and cncls also.
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
The simple solution is to cncl the flight after 2 hours, to ensure enough time to return to a gate to avoid the fine. Which is worse..I guess that depends on your need to get somewhere. Those that need to get places will regret this, those who think that airlines do it on purpose will think it is a good measure.
Crews will be less likely to pull out of the gate in hopes of getting a takeoff slot as well, adding to delays and cncls also.
Of course, the correct solution is to bring our ATC systems out of the 15th century (Believe it or not, over 82% of the flights up and down the east coast actually use carrier pigeons to convey information about weather patterns.), but that might cost, you know, money. And it wouldn't deliver votes. It's easier just to assign a blanket rule.
Mike
Dec 21, 2009, 11:17 am
#8
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAX
Programs: UA MM | BA Silver
Posts: 7,193
THE STATUS QUO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Even if 3 hours is the wrong answer, the airline industry is not doing a good job policing itself, so what is the answer?
If airlines had a comprehensive approach to this issue passengers would not need a blanket rule, which in the end may inconvenience them as well. I was surprised 3 hours is the cutoff, but the airlines track record over the years to keep people from sitting without food and water in a metal tube on the ground for 5,6,7,8,9 hours is atrocious.
What we really need is an overhaul of the ATC systems. However, this is a discussion not related to UA and should be moved.
Even if 3 hours is the wrong answer, the airline industry is not doing a good job policing itself, so what is the answer?
If airlines had a comprehensive approach to this issue passengers would not need a blanket rule, which in the end may inconvenience them as well. I was surprised 3 hours is the cutoff, but the airlines track record over the years to keep people from sitting without food and water in a metal tube on the ground for 5,6,7,8,9 hours is atrocious.
What we really need is an overhaul of the ATC systems. However, this is a discussion not related to UA and should be moved.
Last edited by anc-ord772; Dec 21, 2009 at 11:24 am
Dec 21, 2009, 11:18 am
#9
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
How is it a threat? I am not a pilot, nor a controller. I just think of likely downline consequences of actions. That is called "planning" not threatening. I know the reason planes don't return to gates as a) they think they have a shot of getting out in the immediate future, or b) there is a lack of gate space (too many planes stuck at one airport.)
This "solution" has unintended consequences that are "solved" by never boarding to begin with. Do you have other solutions to planes landing but not taking off, overloading an airport's resources? Gat space at any airport is a fixed commodity. The supply of planes arriving should equal the supply of them departing. Massive weather issues can change the equilibrium, but the fixed supply of gates doesn't vary in irrops, only the supply of aircraft.
Government regulation of how airlines conduct their business (in non safety fields) rarely has the desired results. Regulation in the early days of aviation caused oligopolies with super high fares and few choices. Deregulation has given choices, competition, and lower fares. The ultimate regulator in a free market economy is the consumer. If one feels that a single airline has a terrible track record of poor service, than avoid said airline. IMHO, these incidents happen not due to airline mis-management, but due to an ATC system that is owned/controlled by the govt. Who regulates them to ensure that these things don't happen, and what is their penalty for not providing the ATC services that our tax dollars and ticket fees pay for?
This "solution" has unintended consequences that are "solved" by never boarding to begin with. Do you have other solutions to planes landing but not taking off, overloading an airport's resources? Gat space at any airport is a fixed commodity. The supply of planes arriving should equal the supply of them departing. Massive weather issues can change the equilibrium, but the fixed supply of gates doesn't vary in irrops, only the supply of aircraft.
Government regulation of how airlines conduct their business (in non safety fields) rarely has the desired results. Regulation in the early days of aviation caused oligopolies with super high fares and few choices. Deregulation has given choices, competition, and lower fares. The ultimate regulator in a free market economy is the consumer. If one feels that a single airline has a terrible track record of poor service, than avoid said airline. IMHO, these incidents happen not due to airline mis-management, but due to an ATC system that is owned/controlled by the govt. Who regulates them to ensure that these things don't happen, and what is their penalty for not providing the ATC services that our tax dollars and ticket fees pay for?
Last edited by fastair; Dec 21, 2009 at 11:24 am
Dec 21, 2009, 11:19 am
#10
In Memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Silver lining though
Under the rule, the airlines will have to post on their Web sites details about incidents that exceed the two- or three-hour limits. And airplanes that today do not carry any food would have to start carrying snacks for emergencies, he said.
Emergency snack food, now how appetizing will that be (the actual ruling is over 2 hours with out food and water, or three hours with they get fined)
and this little gem
Prohibits airlines from scheduling chronically delayed flights, subjecting those who do to DOT enforcement action for unfair and deceptive practices;
Not sure what they call a chronically delayed flight.
Under the rule, the airlines will have to post on their Web sites details about incidents that exceed the two- or three-hour limits. And airplanes that today do not carry any food would have to start carrying snacks for emergencies, he said.
Emergency snack food, now how appetizing will that be (the actual ruling is over 2 hours with out food and water, or three hours with they get fined)
and this little gem
Prohibits airlines from scheduling chronically delayed flights, subjecting those who do to DOT enforcement action for unfair and deceptive practices;
Not sure what they call a chronically delayed flight.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:21 am
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Mr. LaHood said the new rules would allow for exemptions in instances in which pilots and air-traffic controllers determined tarmac delays were necessary for security or safety reasons.
Trust me, all the airlines will be talking with their lawyers and will re-define what is the definition of a "safety" or "security" issue.
With so many loopholes in this, it'll just be a "feel good" thing from The Government to the traveling public. The same basis in which the TSA was created.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:22 am
#12
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ORD, MBS
Programs: UA Plat., 1.52 MM
Posts: 2,053
There is another thread on the matter in TravelBuzz.
No need to threat the customers/pax.
All I can say is that the FAA and DOT should start looking for criteria to penalize airlines for undue/nonjusifiable flight cancellations.
That is altogether a separate issue.
No need to threat the customers/pax.
All I can say is that the FAA and DOT should start looking for criteria to penalize airlines for undue/nonjusifiable flight cancellations.
That is altogether a separate issue.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:22 am
#13
Join Date: Jul 2008
Programs: Via Preference Privilege, AC*A, Fairmont Plat, SPG Gold
Posts: 1,334
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
Good news, but time will tell how broadly those exceptions can be used to keep people in the plane longer than 3 hours.
Good news, but time will tell how broadly those exceptions can be used to keep people in the plane longer than 3 hours.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:27 am
#14
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: JAX
Programs: UA Plat MM, AA Gold MM, Marriott LTT, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,770
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261...o&mod=yahoo_hs
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
DoT is saying in 120 days, $27,500 fine per passenger for being on tarmac over 3 hours.
The passengers are the ones who are harmed by the actions of the airlines and the ones who should be acompensated, not the US government.
Dec 21, 2009, 11:28 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
All the airlines and their attorneys will be huddling to re-interpret the definition of a "safety or security" issue, which are the exemptions to the three-hour rule.
This is merely a "feel good" thing from The Government, and a knee-jerk reaction on similar principles which gave birth to the TSA.
This is merely a "feel good" thing from The Government, and a knee-jerk reaction on similar principles which gave birth to the TSA.