Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Is this the end of three-hour waits on the tarmac?
Over the last few years, we've heard countless stories of airlines who have allowed their passengers to spend hours stranded in a plane on the runway. Finally, those nightmare scenarios look like they're about to come to an end.
Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that, beginning this spring, airlines whose passengers sit for more than three hours at a time on the tarmac will face stiff penalties of up to $275,000 per passenger. The new rules, which Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls "President Obama's Passenger Bill of Rights," also force airlines to offer passengers food and water after they've been on the tarmac for two hours.
Many "passengers' rights" groups are pleased with the administration's decision. FlyersRights founder Kate Hanni called the move a "Christmas miracle." "No more will they be able to strand passengers for over three hours in hot, sweaty, metal tubes," she said.
Secretary LaHood discounted the importance of that hypothetical. "You know as well as I do that five minutes always extends out to 50 minutes, and almost always to five hours. There's no such thing as five minutes, never, ever."
Castelveter also noted that planes that let off passengers will have to abandon their spot in the take-off queue, taxi back to the gate, have baggage handlers remove the luggage, and during the winter months, de-ice the plane. The delays resulting from letting off the passengers could be much longer than the delays without it.
More here.
What do you think? Are the benefits of ending three-hour waits worth the costs?
Filed under: Business, United States, Airlines, Airports, News
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex Dec 23rd 2009 10:26AM
Castelveter is right. This legislation is a horrible idea,
Consider your plane has been sitting out on the tarmac somewhere for three hours. The plane's wheels-up time is only a half-hour away, but since the mandated three hours has elapsed, the crew is legally required to ask if anyone wishes to get off the plane.
One person raises their hand.
While the rest of the people on the plane just assume with the extra half hour, one person decides they want to exercise their rights and deplane. So thanks to that one person, the plane has to taxi all the way back to the gate (and likely wait for a gate since it's not an arriving flight), shut down its engines and wait for a jetway to be deployed. Consider even more time if that one person has checked baggage below - baggage crews will have to open and scour through the cargo hold searching for the one person's bags they have to unload.
The plane will most surely miss its wheels-up time, and have to start all over again at the back of the departure line, and possibly even have to file a new flight plan. Not to mention that it will have to be refueled to account for the fuel burned in the taxi back to the gate - almost always a 30 minute-plus process.
So after all this is complete, the plane departs the gate and starts all over at the end of the departure queue. Considering they waited more than three hours to depart on the first try, the delay the second time is likely to be the same, if not longer. So thanks to that one person, everyone else on the plane gets to be delayed for a few more hours. God forbid another three hours goes by and someone else wants to get off, or the crew exceeds their on-duty time limit - that planeful of people could be in for a long night.
Ron Dec 23rd 2009 12:03PM
The scenario Alex gave is totally unlikely in my opinion. What this legislation will mean is the end of being able to get anywhere in a bad weather situation. I.e. more cancellations.
The airline won't just pay crews or idle airplanes that aren't going to go anywhere.
I also doubt that it would be just one person raising their hand to get off. It could be a small amount of people, or it could be a good majority.
What the airlines should do is just make a "mandatory" waiver that would make people would just sign away their right to the rights provided in the bill.
But that contract would probably be illegal. After all, that's essentially what they have said to date: it's our way or the highway.
Personally, I like less regulation in most situations, and I'm sure there were quite a few regulations that probably contributed to the stupidity involved in keeping people on a plane for very long periods of time. Maybe rolling back those regulations could have been tried first before imposing more regulations.
Because now, there's likely to be cancellations even in mild weather delays.
Nick Dec 23rd 2009 12:40PM
I heard on an NPR report yesterday that the new rules will also require the airlines to provide snacks to passengers in-flight if the passengers have been waiting in excess of a certain period of time for their aircraft to take off. Funny, 'coz I can't in my wildest dreams imagine those money-pinching airlines stocking up their planes with snacks just so they don't break the rule in a bad weather situation!
LesterB Dec 28th 2009 3:37PM
There are things that are out of the control of airlines. Good point about the food though, they are already cutting costs, imagine having to keep extra supplies of food on hand for this (regardless if the probability is low or high). I agree that this will merely lead to more cancellations around the holiday season, they really make a good point in this vid: http://tinyurl.com/ykud7bo