Airline Holds Passengers, Again !

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:09 pm

Bill,

I know that on the local news they reported on people whom were delayed as much as 2 days waiting to get out because of the cancellations. As it was, had they not canceled the flights, the delay might have been close to 3 hours, but they wouldn't have been in the planes during that time anyway - airlines already aren't allowed to board planes they know are being delayed or during weather that includes lightning (which these did). As such, which did they experience? Some people (several dozen by the story) didn't get to take their vacations because they missed the cruise they were supposed to go on because they couldn't get a flight until the next day (after the ship left). There was nothing in the story on whether they got their money back, but I have my doubts they got all of it back. So who's at fault there? The airlines who were trying to protect themselves from massive fines if the delay goes to 3 hours and 1 minute and they're 2nd in line to depart or the Congress who put the rules in place without actually thinking beyond the end of their noses and without the otherwise required comment period to work out the BEST way to handle the situation?

The problem with the rule is simple - it's got no gray area. There is no exceptions for penalties. If the airline has people on the plane for more than 3 hours, they get fined if they don't return to the gate and let everyone get off. Period. No, "you're second in line and it's 2:59 into the delay, so you're okay if you don't actually take off until 3:01." No "it's too dangerous to let everyone off the plane at 3:00 because of these thunderstorms so you're okay to wait until 3:15 when the storm passes over." This is why Congress isn't supposed to regulate. They never think about the consequences of their actions. They only think about their intentions.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:27 am

Cap, you make it sound so easy, but this was not a matter of the airlines getting folks in the air in 3:01, not 2:59. If so customers would not have been so upset and Congress had to act. It was a matter of some cases where customers were held on planes for 6,or 8, hours with little or no services, and the airlines just didn't give a darn, or at least could not work together and didn't correct it on their own.
In your Dallas cases, I doubt if the bad weather in the northeast cleared in 3:01, but if so the airline was not stopped by this rule. They don't have to cancel a flight, they can, and have delay it for a couple of hours, then operate. They just can't load up the people and sit on the tarmac indefinitely.
There is no fine for the airline delaying the boarding or start of a flight, even 3 hours, as long as passengers are not held like captives.
There are by the way, some exceptions like safety. If there is a really severe thunderstorm, I'd rather be in the terminal than in a metal tube, but the idea of unloading in a storm was not really the issue in these type delays. And the passengers would not be sent out onto the ramp in rain or hail they'd go in the jetway to the terminal.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:46 pm

Bill, I'm sorry, but you're the one who's minimizing the realities. The law is painfully clear. If you board the plane and the delay hits 3:00 and you don't follow the extremely strict series of options, you're subject to fine. There is NO exception. The airlines will not willingly put themselves in that position. So if it looks like the delay's going to be more than 3 hours - they cancel. It makes it easier on them on more levels, especially with scheduling crews, which has its own set of rules (both federal and union) that cause as many problems as any passenger ever could.

The airlines were never "deregulated", they were only "unencumbered" of the route regulations. There are as many or more regulations and laws that the airlines have to abide by today than at any time in history. It's just like the Staggers Act didn't really deregulate the railroads. It just meant that some of their biggest hindrances to continued survival were removed and replaced by new rules that encumbered them in other areas and in many ways made their jobs even more complex than before.

Go read FAR 119 and 121 Bill. It's an eyeopener as to the kind of regulations that the airlines are subject to. I know that I have a lot of respect for dispatchers and crew schedulers because they have to know a LOT of Federal rules in addition to their own company and union rules to be able to even try to get the planes off the ground on time. Yeah, the airlines have been stupid in the past when it comes to passengers, but you can blame as much of it on the rules they have to operate under as anything because at some point you get put in a position that is un-winnable.

Airplanejunkie · **Posted:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:06 am

jtramo wrote:

Quote:

The pilot on a Virgin Atlantic flight that spent several hours on the tarmac after being diverted to Connecticut had asked for permission to unload the stranded passengers, but a customs official threatened to have them arrested if they did, the airline says.The captain of the trans-Atlantic flight was told by a customs official at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks that passengers couldn't get off the plane until more immigration officials arrived, Greg Dawson, an airline spokesman in London, said in an email. It took more than two hours for the officials to arrive, he said.

If this is true, it would be one of the exceptions to the rule, had it otherwise applied (it only applies to US carriers.) There are some other exceptions that include law enforcement, ATC and safety concerns. FWIW: I sincerely doubt that the threat to have the crew arrested was hollow. Allowing passengers to disembark without customs approval (except in a life threatening emergency) is a pretty big deal.

The law doesn't impact the other (non airline) agencies involved such as customs, TSA, ATC, local airport authorities or even other airlines. They have little or no obligation to facilitate compliance with the 3 hour maximum.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:35 pm

Cap, don't the airlines delay flights or schedule them to leave later like in bad weather delays?
They do here.

These delays were not before and are not now prohibited by the new law.

The only thing the law says is IF PASSENGERS ARE HELD ON THE PLANE, AFTER TWO HOURS THEY MUST HAVE BASIC SERVICES, AND AFTER THREE HOURS THE FINE TAKES AFFECT. And there are small exceptions like from atc or law enforcement, I am pretty sure.

THERE IS NO FINE WHATSOEVER, IF THE FLIGHT WAS DELAYED FOR TWO HOURS WITHOUT BOARDING, THEN BOARDED AND TOOK OFF IN ONE MORE HOUR.

The only think prohibited is holding passengers on the plane for more than three hours. If I am wrong, please quote me the part of the law that prohibits delays, BEFORE boarding,and I will certainly admit that.

I am sure the airlines have many rules to comply with. I agree with this three hour one.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:45 pm

Bill,
As I understand it, the flight was already 'en route' but the destination went down. The crew needing some place to land requested (or accepted) Bradley, but seeing as how they were in 'never never land' because of weather divert coupled with foreign initial point and what I feel might have been some xzenophbia on the part of the airport 'furrniers!! comin' here?? boil the oil' made an unplanned and unfortunate weather incident into a circus maximus ('appearing as the clowns-TSA!! lets give them a big hand!!'), now do you see why a lot of us weren't too excited several months ago over our unknowing/uncaring elected (mis)representatives who don't know or understand how the real world functions outside the beltway, crammed this deal down everyones gullet just to A) shut up the public and B) appear to be acting in the public interest, when C) all they wanted was A).

Airplanejunkie · **Posted:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:25 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

The only think prohibited is holding passengers on the plane for more than three hours. If I am wrong, please quote me the part of the law that prohibits delays, BEFORE boarding,and I will certainly admit that.

No rule against delaying boarding. No rule against preemptively cancelling the flight altogether. No rule against sitting for 2 hrs 59 minutes and then returning to the gate, to either cancel or go sit some more.

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Inforseen diverts are a reality. That's why we carry alternate fuel. If customs (or TSA or a host of other agencies) says we can't deplane, we can't, regardless of the 3 hr rule.

b29flteng · **Posted:** Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:02 pm

Ark. woman's lawsuit against airline dismissed – A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of an Arkansas woman's lawsuit claiming she was illegally imprisoned on an American Airlines plane for 9 1/2 hours. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal judge that the airline's conduct did not amount to false imprisonment as claimed in the lawsuit by Catherine Ray. She was among the passengers stranded on the tarmac in Austin, Texas, on Dec. 29, 2006 when the flight from Oakland, Calif., to Dallas was rerouted because of bad weather…. (Associated Press)

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:22 pm

There is a featured story in Friday's USA Today to the point that the new rule is workking well, there have only been 5 strandings over the 3 hour limit, and 3 of these were on United when it was diverted. I don't think any of these have been the very long 6 hour type.
And no airline was fined as of yet in these cases, the FAA is still investigating.

jtramo · **Joined:** Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:39 pm **Posts:** 359

Quote:

Hundreds rescued from overheated trains in Germany
AP

By VERENA SCHMITT-ROSCHMANN, Associated Press Writer Verena Schmitt-roschmann, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jul 11, 1:35 pm ET

BERLIN – A grueling heat wave shut down the air conditioning in three high-tech trains in Germany, leaving dozens of passengers near collapse trapped in temperatures of up to 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit), authorities said Sunday.

At least 52 people needed medical treatment and about 1,000 people had to switch trains, the national railway system, Deutsche Bahn, said.

All three modern ICE trains — whose windows do not open — were headed west from Berlin on Saturday, Deutsche Bahn spokesman Juergen Kornmann said. While two lost their air conditioning fairly close to a station and could be emptied quickly, a third heated up some distance before reaching the city of Bielefeld.

Kornmann said eight people suffering from heat exhaustion needed to be hospitalized in Bielefeld and another 44 needed medical treatment.

"We regret that some passengers suffered from health problems and even had to be taken to the hospital," Deutsche Bahn manager Ulrich Homburg said in a written statement. "We are shocked and want to apologize."

Ninety-one rescue staff called to Bielefeld station had to treat people suffering from hyperventilation, vertigo, overheating, headaches, and other symptoms, the local fire fighters said in a press release.

Among those needing treatment were 27 youths who were on their way back from a class trip to Berlin, it said. The other youths continued their journey on air-conditioned buses.

Hans-Dieter Muehlenberg, chief of a local rescue squad, was quoted by the DAPD news agency as saying temperatures inside the train approached 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit).

Deutsche Bahn said, the trains' problems were caused by the heat outside. Germany has gone through a severe heat wave with temperatures approaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).

Clearly the airlines are at fault here as well!

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:05 pm

The train story doesn't seem to have much to do with the airlines. Not only a different vehicle, but a different treatment. Instead of holding passengers against their will the train people evacuated them.

jtramo · **Joined:** Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:39 pm **Posts:** 359

Quote:

The latest statistics from the Transportation Department show that flight cancellations for May jumped about 30 percent from the same month last year, while consumer complaints against U.S. airlines rose 23 percent. The data also show that the number of paying passengers denied seats on flights increased 37 percent for the first three months of the year.

The increased cancellations may be partly the result of airlines trying to avoid new federal penalties for airlines that strand passengers on delayed flights for more than three hours. The fines, which took effect April 29, are as high as $27,500 per passenger.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/12/20 ... z0tgeV897J

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/12/20 ... climb.html

airknocker · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:59 pm

Maybe it's time for all the aviation groups (NBAA, AOPA, EAA, etc,.) to establish info kiosks at major airport terminals promoting flight training and aircraft ownership.
Never let a crisis go to waste!

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

This is not the airlines fault.., this the highly antiquated ATC in the US. The system is absolutely absurd!

Warbird Information Exchange

Airline Holds Passengers, Again !

Who is online