UConn James Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 As much as I dislike a lot of what the past couple of administrations have done, I do try to make an effort to applaud certain of actions that are wholly good ideas, in the interest of not being a critic all the time. Among these for Bush was the creation of the coral reef preserves, whose size (IIRC) was more than the cumulative area of all the national parks combined. U.S. Limits Tarmac Waits for Passengers to Three Hours 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.... From January to June this year, 613 planes were delayed on tarmacs for more than three hours, their passengers kept on board. ... On Aug. 8, Continental Express Flight 2816 en route to Minneapolis was diverted to Rochester due to thunderstorms. Forty-seven passengers were kept overnight in a cramped plane amid crying babies and a smelly toilet because Mesaba employees refused to open a gate so that they could enter the closed airport terminal. Buying a plane ticket and boarding should not mean airlines can literally hold you hostage when their equipment doesn't work. I more than understand that sometimes things happen, but three hours would seem a fair limit in the whole 'Sh-- or get off the pot' milieu. Sad that this has to be codified, but I guess that's the age we live in.
PastaJoe Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I don't like the loophole they left, "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." Having any plane return to the terminal could disrupt operations to some degree.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 It only makes sense, haven't other industries been operating like that for almost a hundred years or so... Case in point: Even at the locks and dams... If I can't lock a pleasure boat because of commercial craft or hazmat situations... BY LAW (USC: 33 CFR 207.300) we have to accomadate the vessel after 3 turns... A special lockage must be made. With regard to these tarmac waits, I don't like the "safety/security loophole" either.
Magox Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Amazing that you just brought this up, we were just discussing this over at my office and how this is one action from this administration that we all thought made sense.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Amazing that you just brought this up, we were just discussing this over at my office and how this is one action from this administration that we all thought made sense. Like duh! Ya... Because most people you are with fly and hate to wait... But be the one without health insurance or have a pre-existing condition that gets denied... And it is another story... Of course they wouldn't be in your "office" because they wouldn't be working... So you guys probably don't care...
Magox Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Like duh! Ya... Because most people you are with fly and hate to wait... But be the one without health insurance or have a pre-existing condition that gets denied... And it is another story... Of course they wouldn't be in your "office" because they wouldn't be working... So you guys probably don't care... Are you this stupid every monday?
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Are you this stupid every monday? What's Monday have to do with it?
Magox Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 What's Monday have to do with it? I've noted some variations
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Are you this stupid every monday? Ya... Like Chef said, what does Monday have to do with it. I just hate people talking stupid like you were. Maybe I am just a blue collar type of guy or something.
3rdnlng Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I've noted some variations What, dumb and dumber?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 What, dumb and dumber? Hey laugh now... I will still be here... We will see what happens, won't we?
RkFast Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Dumb law. I know a buncha people who work for ATC, airport ops, etc. Its borderline unenforceable. And for the few times that it will be enforced, its going to result in even MORE inconvenience and cause delays and cancellations. But like MOST laws written these days...."sounds good." So "yay."
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Amazing that you just brought this up, we were just discussing this over at my office and how this is one action from this administration that we all thought made sense. Well-intended, but artificially restricting, and hence stupid. For example: a plane is required to return to the gate after three hours, even if it can take off in ten minutes? Or it's okay to leave the gate with a full plane even if you know you have a two-and-a-half hour tarmac wait in front of you? It's an attempt to regulate common sense, in such a way that eliminates common sense from all consideration.
KD in CA Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I don't like the loophole they left, "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." Same here. OF COURSE it is going to "disrupt operations". But that's legislation in our modern age. Pass some toothless bullsh-- so that the headlines will placate the masses. Meanwhile, the airlines won't change a thing and the Congresscum from IL, TX and whereever else the airlines have HQ will enjoy another big contribution. I've really always wanted to see someone in one of those endless situations yank out an emergency window, slide down and walk across the tarmac back to the terminal. I don't think a jury anywhere would convict someone for that. It's an attempt to regulate common sense, in such a way that eliminates common sense from all consideration. Common sense would be not letting them leave the gate until you are within 30 minutes of takeoff. How friggin hard can it be to figure this stuff out when you know exactly how many planes are scheduled to take off and land??
RkFast Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Well-intended, but artificially restricting, and hence stupid. For example: a plane is required to return to the gate after three hours, even if it can take off in ten minutes? Or it's okay to leave the gate with a full plane even if you know you have a two-and-a-half hour tarmac wait in front of you? It's an attempt to regulate common sense, in such a way that eliminates common sense from all consideration. Exactly...there are so many unique sitations and loopholes. If people have been waiting for two hours, but they have a takeoff window in 45 minutes..or if its mechanical related, the part they waited for its literally "on its way" from another airline its borrowed from or in the process of being installed, THEN what happens? I mean on arrivals, sure.....you find a !@#$ing gate and if no gate is available, you send a bus out to the tarmac and get the passengers in that way. Its fairly easy to take care of. But with departures...this is going to be a B word. People piss me off when it comes to air travel....even on a weather weekend like we just had, they act like they are ENTITLED to be taken sometimes THOUSANDS of miles without ONE OUNCE of heavy breathing. On a different, yet kinda related note, the 787 is amazing and if really as efficient and as passenger comfortable as Boeing claims, may put Airbus right out of business. And even WORSE for Airbus, the two best features of the Dreamliner, the wing and new cabin interior, is being carried over to the 747 and later, 737.
UConn James Posted December 21, 2009 Author Posted December 21, 2009 Dumb law. I know a buncha people who work for ATC, airport ops, etc. Its borderline unenforceable. And for the few times that it will be enforced, its going to result in even MORE inconvenience and cause delays and cancellations. But like MOST laws written these days...."sounds good." So "yay." Until it's you who literally gets trapped for 6-8 hours on a plane and cannot leave, yeah, I guess a few people probably won't understand the intent of this rule. Yeah, no ****, it is easier to strand passengers out on the runway so they're not all up in the hizzle. Hurrah for someone who can punch out and say, "Hey, I just work here!" or "Looks good from my house!" that argument is pretty weaselly. It may make for an inconvenience for airport workers, but this is for the rights of the passenger. If the plane isn't going anywhere soon, let people off so they can make alternate plans if they can/want, get a hotel room, etc. Well-intended, but artificially restricting, and hence stupid. For example: a plane is required to return to the gate after three hours, even if it can take off in ten minutes? Or it's okay to leave the gate with a full plane even if you know you have a two-and-a-half hour tarmac wait in front of you? It's an attempt to regulate common sense, in such a way that eliminates common sense from all consideration. As I wrote, it's sad that this apparently needs to be codified because of situations that have happened. It's sad that companies actually treat paying customers like that. You would hope that in the application of this, the common sense would prevail. In your first scenario at least, the pilot would come on the intercom and tell his/her passengers that they will be taking off w/in 20 minutes and it would be cool. A lot of the situation's resolution would be proper communication. You'd hope this. A lot of times the world isn't like that. The rule seems more geared toward some employees who seem to think of passengers as cattle rather than humans, as was evinced in the article.
RkFast Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Until it's you who literally gets trapped for 6-8 hours on a plane and cannot leave, yeah, I guess a few people probably won't understand the intent of this rule. Yeah, no ****, it is easier to strand passengers out on the runway so they're not all up in the hizzle. Hurrah for someone who can say, "Hey, I just work here!" or "Looks good from my house!" I find that argument to be very weaselly. It may make for an inconvenience for airport workers, but this is for the rights of the passenger. If the plane isn't going anywhere, let people off so they can make alternate plans if they can/want, get a hotel room, etc. Well, roo late. Ive been on PLENTY of fligts where I was stuck for three-four hours waiting for depature due to weather/mechanical or....both! Let me ask you this...if you have a two and a HALF hour delay you just endured......you want to wait a bit longer and depart? Or you want to be pulled off and told "go home or back to your hotel and come back tomorrow?" Guess which option this dumb new law FORCES you to take?
UConn James Posted December 21, 2009 Author Posted December 21, 2009 Well, roo late. Ive been on PLENTY of fligts where I was stuck for three-four hours waiting for depature due to weather/mechanical or....both! Let me ask you this...if you have a two and a HALF hour delay you just endured......you want to wait a bit longer and depart? Or you want to be pulled off and told "go home or back to your hotel and come back tomorrow?" Guess which option this dumb new law FORCES you to take? The writing doesn't seem to suggest that planes will be forced to go back to the gate at T plus 3:00:00. It's that passengers must be given the option to disembark and return to the terminal. This could be done fairly easily with the portable stairs and shuttle transport for anyone who does want to do this when hearing a report of their specific situation. You would hope that if the problem was communicated to the passengers, e.g. that the part is being installed right now and we'll be ready for take-off in X minutes.... everyone would understand and be able to wait a bit longer. This would require good faith on both sides (something that the airline industry hasn't shown a good deal of in the past, tho...). Of course, some airlines might do exactly what you write if the flight will no longer be a net profit to them with the remaining passengers. I'm also fairly sure that this rule has been discussed with the airlines, and this is not willy-nilly.
RkFast Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 The writing doesn't seem to suggest that planes will be forced to go back to the gate at T plus 3:00:00. It's that passengers must be given the option to disembark and return to the terminal. This could be done fairly easily with the portable stairs and shuttle transport for anyone who does want to do this when hearing a report of their specific situation. You would hope that if the problem was communicated to the passengers, e.g. that the part is being installed right now and we'll be ready for take-off in X minutes.... everyone would understand and be able to wait a bit longer. This would require good faith on both sides (something that the airline industry hasn't shown a good deal of in the past, tho...). Of course, some airlines might do exactly what you write if the flight will no longer be a net profit to them with the remaining passengers. But thats the problem with the law! It doesnt take into account that funny little thing called "the real world." I dont mean to be a doosh...let me explain... Once an airliner pushes back...ESPECIALLY once its out on the taxiways in line for takeoff, there IS NO OPTION to just up and "go back to the terminal", especially at major airports like Logan, JFK, LGA, Dulles, LAX, MCO, etc. There isnt even the possibility of just "sending busses out to the taxiway" like you propose. Its WAY too dangerous. The decision must be made AT THE GATE to either move forward, or give people the option to leave. Once an airplane leaves the gate, even before it leaves the tarmac area and goes out to the taxiway, its bloody difficult to get it back to the gate, sometimes impossible....which is why this situation often occurs in the first place.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Why would they be changing a part on the tarmac? What a flat tire?
Recommended Posts