Passanger Rights Bill
Jun 10, 1999, 1:41 pm
#1
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
Passanger Rights Bill
According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, a passenger rights bill is imminent! Thanks to the grief caused by NWA this winter and the simple fact that so many "lawmakers" have two homes and lots of traveling!
Jun 10, 1999, 5:36 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Cambridge, MA 02138
Posts: 2,103
Airlines scuttle announcement of draft passenger rights plan...WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Stung by a newspaper report suggesting airlines were trying to pre-empt Congressional action to protect passengers from bad service, the Air Transport Association delayed a Thursday announcement of a voluntary customer service plan of its own.
For the full article, see: http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/NEWS/9906/...nger.rights02/
For the full article, see: http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/NEWS/9906/...nger.rights02/
Jun 12, 1999, 1:41 pm
#3
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: ORD
Programs: AA(xPLT now GLD), UA, DL, HH(GLD), MR(GLD), HY(DIS), and others...
Posts: 141
After an experience last night, I might be the biggest proponent of the Bill of Rights, but I wonder how it would work, and what the penalties would be when the rights are violated?
I was on United 1719 from CVG to ORD. The flight was delayed more than 7 hours because the plane was delayed by weather in Chicago and arrived at about 10pm instead of 3:30pm. We boarded and flew the 50 minutes to O'Hare. Then, on the ground at O'Hare, without any food or beverages on board (all consumed during the "flight" from Chicago to Cincinnati) we sat on the tarmac "waiting for a gate to clear" from 11:10pm to 1:30am! More than 2 hours waiting on the ground for a gate. Unbelievable.
Pilot said all the gates were filled and all the pilots taking most of the planes outbound were stuck on planes that couldn't get into the gates so they couldn't take the planes out. Convoluted to me! Absurd in fact!
So what would this legislation have done for us?
I was on United 1719 from CVG to ORD. The flight was delayed more than 7 hours because the plane was delayed by weather in Chicago and arrived at about 10pm instead of 3:30pm. We boarded and flew the 50 minutes to O'Hare. Then, on the ground at O'Hare, without any food or beverages on board (all consumed during the "flight" from Chicago to Cincinnati) we sat on the tarmac "waiting for a gate to clear" from 11:10pm to 1:30am! More than 2 hours waiting on the ground for a gate. Unbelievable.
Pilot said all the gates were filled and all the pilots taking most of the planes outbound were stuck on planes that couldn't get into the gates so they couldn't take the planes out. Convoluted to me! Absurd in fact!
So what would this legislation have done for us?
Jun 12, 1999, 3:53 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
The important question is not what legislation Congress will mandate, but rather what do we as travelers expect in such situations.
I was taking a flight from MSP yesterday and I found out too that there was extreme weather in Chicago yesterday. So much so that there were a couple of planes including a 777 that were diverted to MSP. And the planes that were supposed to arrive from ORD were delayed too, so the whole system was messed up.
I've been in some situations where my flight was extremely delayed because of bad weather, and I doubt if any legislation from Congress can do anything to prevent gridlocks in such situations.
I was taking a flight from MSP yesterday and I found out too that there was extreme weather in Chicago yesterday. So much so that there were a couple of planes including a 777 that were diverted to MSP. And the planes that were supposed to arrive from ORD were delayed too, so the whole system was messed up.
I've been in some situations where my flight was extremely delayed because of bad weather, and I doubt if any legislation from Congress can do anything to prevent gridlocks in such situations.
Jun 12, 1999, 11:52 pm
#5
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 238
I don't know if "interesting" is a way to describe this situation, but it was enlightening.
Flying AA ORD - STL last Thursday. FO is late due to bad weather in DFW. AA locates another FO and we depart the gate 15 minutes late.
STL is experiencing severe thunderstorms and our flight is held at ORD. Our flight stops on the tarmac to wait out the delay. After about 30 minutes, word is that the ground stop has been released by STL but the STL flights that are backed up in the air will delay us another 90 minutes. Before we can take off, ORD issued a weather-related ground stop for all southbound flights.
When the ORD ground stop was released, STL was held again. When STL is released, ORD issues another ground stop.
Long story shortened, over 4 hours are spent on the tarmac at ORD.
The pilot wanted to go back to the gate, however, he said if he did, we would lose our take-off and landing slots, thus delaying us even further. Plus, when getting to a gate, if one is available, temporarily off-loading passengers would mean another delay. Although it was unpleasant on the plane, I didn’t hear anyone object to waiting on the tarmac.
In the end, we arrived in STL 4-1/2 hours late. But I think this experience indicates that with any Bill of Rights, the FAA may need to relax its rules regarding slot availability. Our flight would have faced a "time penalty" due to the lost slot if we went back to the gate – even though waiting this out at the gate would have been the "right" thing to do.
Flying AA ORD - STL last Thursday. FO is late due to bad weather in DFW. AA locates another FO and we depart the gate 15 minutes late.
STL is experiencing severe thunderstorms and our flight is held at ORD. Our flight stops on the tarmac to wait out the delay. After about 30 minutes, word is that the ground stop has been released by STL but the STL flights that are backed up in the air will delay us another 90 minutes. Before we can take off, ORD issued a weather-related ground stop for all southbound flights.
When the ORD ground stop was released, STL was held again. When STL is released, ORD issues another ground stop.
Long story shortened, over 4 hours are spent on the tarmac at ORD.
The pilot wanted to go back to the gate, however, he said if he did, we would lose our take-off and landing slots, thus delaying us even further. Plus, when getting to a gate, if one is available, temporarily off-loading passengers would mean another delay. Although it was unpleasant on the plane, I didn’t hear anyone object to waiting on the tarmac.
In the end, we arrived in STL 4-1/2 hours late. But I think this experience indicates that with any Bill of Rights, the FAA may need to relax its rules regarding slot availability. Our flight would have faced a "time penalty" due to the lost slot if we went back to the gate – even though waiting this out at the gate would have been the "right" thing to do.