Well intentioned law stuck down

[Globaliser]

All the airport needs is one set of stairs and one set of buses. So it takes twenty minutes to unload one airplane. Then they move to the next one. People can wait twenty or thirty minutes to disembark a lot easier than then can wait ten hours sitting on an airplane going nowhere.

Say you've got twenty stranded aircraft with no gates: one set of stairs, twenty minutes per aircraft (which is an optimistic estimate in severe weather conditions, although it might be achievable with a small aircraft like a 737) = 6 hours 40 minutes before you've unloaded all of them.

 

But maybe all you care about is being on the first aircraft to be disembarked so you need wait only twenty or thirty minutes. I'll bet you wouldn't be happy to be the one waiting 6 hours and 40 minutes, even on your super-duper solve-it-all grand plan.

then how did the airplane leave the gate to begin with???

You ever heard of deteriorating weather?

[cruzegirl]

Say you've got twenty stranded aircraft with no gates: one set of stairs, twenty minutes per aircraft (which is an optimistic estimate in severe weather conditions, although it might be achievable with a small aircraft like a 737) = 6 hours 40 minutes before you've unloaded all of them.

 

But maybe all you care about is being on the first aircraft to be disembarked so you need wait only twenty or thirty minutes. I'll bet you wouldn't be happy to be the one waiting 6 hours and 40 minutes, even on your super-duper solve-it-all grand plan.You ever heard of deteriorating weather?

 

 

To try, to make an effort, to have a plan.... It's better than nothing. It's an effort to take care of your passengers and without those passengers, these airlines would not be in business. But more and more businesses are doing less in customer service and less in taking care of their passengers or customers. Now, sometimes people expect/want too much. But the basic needs are not too much.

Ok smarty pants. If they can't bring the passengers back to the gate, then get trucks out there with food/water and get the potty trucks out to take care of that situation. At least folks would believe an attempt was made to take care of them instead of just sc**w you passengers attitude of businesses. And if you dare tell me that the trucks can't get to those planes, then get ones that can. No one, no one should have to stay in those conditions.

And this truly isn't meant personally but some parts of the country have different thoughts based on their area. Maybe the UK has different standards, I don't know. Have to ask my Brit friend. But it just surprises me how much you stick up for the airlines. Like you have a stake in this versus being more supportive for the passengers and conditions some of them have had to endure. Just saying........

[Cuizer2]

Say you've got twenty stranded aircraft with no gates: one set of stairs, twenty minutes per aircraft (which is an optimistic estimate in severe weather conditions, although it might be achievable with a small aircraft like a 737) = 6 hours 40 minutes before you've unloaded all of them.

 

But maybe all you care about is being on the first aircraft to be disembarked so you need wait only twenty or thirty minutes. I'll bet you wouldn't be happy to be the one waiting 6 hours and 40 minutes, even on your super-duper solve-it-all grand plan.You ever heard of deteriorating weather?

You accuse others of not understanding the weather and then you post this? When weather deteriorates it does so gradually. Not all at once. To believe your ridiculous claim, the weather would have to be good enough for the planes to leave, and for the same number to arrive, and yet not one could take off. Once again, you are claiming that things could happen just to support your position, even though an examination of your claim would show that it is either flawed or requires mutually exclusive things to happen.

 

How do you get 20 plans sitting on a taxi way with no open gates? Where did all these planes come from? Are you claiming 20 planes landed in the same amount of time? Show me one airport where flights are scheduled this closely. In other words, stop making these wild, unrealistic out of the blue statements, and back it up with some real facts.

 

I have spent plenty of time at airports and I know they don't schedule things so closely that as soon as a plane leaves a gate another plane takes its place.

 

And where have you seen twenty planes waiting for take off. The only place this could happen is at a major airport with the facilities to handle twenty planes, including several sets of portable stairs.

 

At least you admit that passengers don't like waiting on planes going nowhere. Yet, if I read your statement, you believe it is better to have the passengers of twenty planes going nowhere wait ten hours then to have the first group off in 20 minutes, the second group off in 40 minutes, the third group off in one hour, the sixth group off in two hours, the ninth group off in three hours (so now 45% of the people are no longer stuck on the planes) ... until the last group is taken off in 400 minutes.

 

Even 400 minutes, or less (as noted above) in the impossible situation you dreamed up, is better than 10 hours for everyone. So would rather be the last of my plan, than anybody with your nonexistent who cares about the passengers since we already have your money, plan.

[Cuizer2]

To try, to make an effort, to have a plan.... It's better than nothing. It's an effort to take care of your passengers and without those passengers, these airlines would not be in business. But more and more businesses are doing less in customer service and less in taking care of their passengers or customers. Now, sometimes people expect/want too much. But the basic needs are not too much.

 

Ok smarty pants. If they can't bring the passengers back to the gate, then get trucks out there with food/water and get the potty trucks out to take care of that situation. At least folks would believe an attempt was made to take care of them instead of just sc**w you passengers attitude of businesses. And if you dare tell me that the trucks can't get to those planes, then get ones that can. No one, no one should have to stay in those conditions.

 

And this truly isn't meant personally but some parts of the country have different thoughts based on their area. Maybe the UK has different standards, I don't know. Have to ask my Brit friend. But it just surprises me how much you stick up for the airlines. Like you have a stake in this versus being more supportive for the passengers and conditions some of them have had to endure. Just saying........

Forget it. Globaliser has made it clear that Globaliser doesn't care about the passengers stuck on the planes. All Globaliser wants to do is bring up impossible situations that support Globaliser's point of view and hope no one actually analyzes the scenarios to see that they are either impossible or involve two things that are mutually exclusive.

[greatam]

I really wonder why the two of you are getting yourself in such a tizzy about something that has happened MAYBE 15 times in the last 3 years. Pretty low percentage when you think about how many flights there are in a year.

 

And one thing you haven't thought about-OSHA and union rules, as well as rules the airports themselves implement.

 

Quite a few airports have rules PROHIBITING ANYONE from being on the tarmac during certain types of inclement weather. I am specifically thinking of DFW and rules prohibiting equipment, planes and people from moving ANYPLACE on the tarmac when there are large thunderstorms. Lightening and funnel clouds can materialize VERY rapidly. And when the tower and DFW airport authority institutes "ground stops/holds", NO ONE MOVES. Not planes, not tugs, not GateChef (the food/water people). I have sat on the tarmac in quite a few planes at DFW. Not particularly pleasant and not for 10 hours, but 4.5 hours three years ago. NO ONE COULD MOVE-so you sure couldn't bring out buses and portable stairs.

 

And one other thing-liability to airlines/airports using portable stairs in inclement weather. JFK will not allow full pallets of cargo to be loaded if the temperature is below 26 degrees and the air is moist/it is raining/it is sleeting. TOO MUCH chance of an accident with fork lifts sliding into a plane or damaging freight.

 

Extrapolate that to ONE immobile/elderly person trying to get down stairs and to a bus in the same weather conditions. The liability would be HUGE. The SAFEST thing to do in those situations is STAY ON THE PLANE. Sure, it may be uncomfortable, but what would you do??? Leave the ONE immobile person on the plane to fend for themselves.

 

I have been doing international logistics planning/moving freight world wide on planes, trains and trucks for 30 years. I also fly for business over 100,000 miles per year. S**T HAPPENS. Sometimes you just have to deal with it.

[Cuizer2]

I really wonder why the two of you are getting yourself in such a tizzy about something that has happened MAYBE 15 times in the last 3 years. Pretty low percentage when you think about how many flights there are in a year.

 

And one thing you haven't thought about-OSHA and union rules, as well as rules the airports themselves implement.

 

Quite a few airports have rules PROHIBITING ANYONE from being on the tarmac during certain types of inclement weather. I am specifically thinking of DFW and rules prohibiting equipment, planes and people from moving ANYPLACE on the tarmac when there are large thunderstorms. Lightening and funnel clouds can materialize VERY rapidly. And when the tower and DFW airport authority institutes "ground stops/holds", NO ONE MOVES. Not planes, not tugs, not GateChef (the food/water people). I have sat on the tarmac in quite a few planes at DFW. Not particularly pleasant and not for 10 hours, but 4.5 hours three years ago. NO ONE COULD MOVE-so you sure couldn't bring out buses and portable stairs.

 

And one other thing-liability to airlines/airports using portable stairs in inclement weather. JFK will not allow full pallets of cargo to be loaded if the temperature is below 26 degrees and the air is moist/it is raining/it is sleeting. TOO MUCH chance of an accident with fork lifts sliding into a plane or damaging freight.

 

Extrapolate that to ONE immobile/elderly person trying to get down stairs and to a bus in the same weather conditions. The liability would be HUGE. The SAFEST thing to do in those situations is STAY ON THE PLANE. Sure, it may be uncomfortable, but what would you do??? Leave the ONE immobile person on the plane to fend for themselves.

 

I have been doing international logistics planning/moving freight world wide on planes, trains and trucks for 30 years. I also fly for business over 100,000 miles per year. S**T HAPPENS. Sometimes you just have to deal with it.

I've seen rescue helicopters used to rescue animals off cliffs in bad weather while other rescuers are hanging on ropes. All of that effort for one animal, yet no effort at all for the humans. I must say, PETA and SPCA have done themselves proud. To bad we humans are not worthy of the same consideration.

[greatam]

I've seen rescue helicopters used to rescue animals off cliffs in bad weather while other rescuers are hanging on ropes. All of that effort for one animal, yet no effort at all for the humans. I must say, PETA and SPCA have done themselves proud. To bad we humans are not worthy of the same consideration.

 

Since when are people sitting on planes AT AN AIRPORT in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury???? Your argument holds no water.

 

Maybe you should start a charity-POPSOT-People on Planes Stuck on Tarmac. Raise money and bring on the helicopters!!!! LOL

 

PS: PETA doesn't rescue animals. They kill most they rescue.

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

[Cuizer2]

Since when are people sitting on planes AT AN AIRPORT in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury???? Your argument holds no water.

 

Maybe you should start a charity-POPSOT-People on Planes Stuck on Tarmac. Raise money and bring on the helicopters!!!! LOL

 

PS: PETA doesn't rescue animals. They kill those they rescue.

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

 

1) Please identify the post where I claimed anyone was in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury.

 

The point I made was, if an animal is worthy of such effort, then so are humans. In this case the airlines are making no effort. I never claims helicopters should be used. I only claimed that humans should be treated like humans. Apparently you don't agree. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

[greatam]

The point I made was, if an animal is worthy of such effort, then so are humans. In this case the airlines are making no effort. I never claims helicopters should be used. I only claimed that humans should be treated like humans. Apparently you don't agree. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Animals rescued off cliffs in inclement weather are in IMMINENT danger of death/severe bodily injury or the money/potential for human injury would NOT be expended to rescue them, unless the owner was personally paying for the rescue.

 

Humans on airplanes sure don't need to be "rescued". And they are sitting on an airplane-not stuck in a dog kennel or on a cliff. How do you think they are not treated as human beings???? Because they don't have food??? Because the toilets are full??? Guess you have never been to a rock concert or NASCAR race. Both often have overflowing toilets.

 

I really want to hear your ideas on how to handle the VERY few situations that occur.

[Cuizer2]

Animals rescued off cliffs in inclement weather are in IMMINENT danger of death/severe bodily injury or the money/potential for human injury would NOT be expended to rescue them, unless the owner was personally paying for the rescue.

 

Humans on airplanes sure don't need to be "rescued". And they are sitting on an airplane-not stuck in a dog kennel or on a cliff. How do you think they are not treated as human beings???? Because they don't have food??? Because the toilets are full??? Guess you have never been to a rock concert or NASCAR race. Both often have overflowing toilets.

 

I really want to hear your ideas on how to handle the VERY few situations that occur.

 

The owners of the animals are not billed for the rescue services. Neither are people who "fall" off of cruise ships that are rescued by the Coast Guard or the cruise ship itself.

 

I disagree with you about the need to "rescue" the humans on the airplane. I believe they do need to be rescued. So did the state of New York. As for my ideas, I believe the New York proposal was a good one. What is wrong with it. So far the only criticism of the law seems to be that the Federal Government did not propose it.

[Globaliser]

To try, to make an effort, to have a plan.... It's better than nothing. It's an effort to take care of your passengers and without those passengers, these airlines would not be in business.

And you think the airlines don't know that? You think that the airlines don't have plans and implement them? You think that the airlines want the bad publicity, loss of revenue and expense caused by incidents such as this?

 

Is it really beyond your imagination to understand that when these incidents happen, as infrequently as they do, it's because even the best plans sometimes go wrong?

 

Or are you determined to adhere to your view that the airlines don't have any plans and actually just don't care? How, then, do you explain that in 99.9% of incidents or more, the airlines' plans actually work out and nobody gets stuck on any aircraft despite the filthy weather? Is it just easier to ignore the times when things go right, or are you just being plain prejudiced?

Maybe the UK has different standards, I don't know. Have to ask my Brit friend. But it just surprises me how much you stick up for the airlines. Like you have a stake in this versus being more supportive for the passengers and conditions some of them have had to endure.

No, not a stake. Just a fair amount of personal experience as a passenger (about 100,000 miles flown each year), and a resulting lifelong interest in the way the industry works, what makes it tick, what is possible and what is not, and how everything is held together despite the tiny fares that we pay today for air travel. After all, on my most frequent long-haul route, I can often get a ticket now for about half of the cost of the same ticket in 1976, when I first started flying it routinely - before you take inflation into account.

 

So you may think this odd, but I happen to prefer to take a balanced view of the whole situation from everyone's point of view, and not look at things only from the viewpoint of the "poor caged passenger", who (although important) is not the only consideration here.

 

And yes, you are absolutely right that we have different standards here in Europe. We have consumer protection legislation that you do not, that creates directly enforceable passenger rights against airlines in the case of cancellations, delays, and denied boarding. As it happens, it's been a mixed blessing: the airlines that used to be more generous than the legislation now requires have become less generous; but other airlines have had to start looking after their customers when they didn't do so before.

 

But that legislation also recognises - as you do not - that sometimes things will go very wrong despite everyone's best efforts. The legislation does not sit back and luxuriantly say, "They must be able to do something, and I refuse to listen to any explanations of why it isn't possible."

I disagree with you about the need to "rescue" the humans on the airplane. I believe they do need to be rescued.

So presumably, you side with Michael Gianaris, the Democratic assemblyman from Queens who said, "One would struggle to find examples as outrageous as those faced by passenger on these planes"?

 

Well, if so, you're entitled to your (and his) hyperbole. But I think it is worth taking just a moment to step back, take a good look at the world, and see just how ridiculous that statement is.

I disagree with you about the need to "rescue" the humans on the airplane. I believe they do need to be rescued.As for my ideas, I believe the New York proposal was a good one. What is wrong with it. So far the only criticism of the law seems to be that the Federal Government did not propose it.

I would expect that if the federal government proposed a law, it would do so with all the knowledge and experience of the FAA behind it, and adopt a sensible attitude to the extreme situations that we have been discussing in this thread, rather than the absolutist approach espoused by you and cruzegirl.

[Globaliser]

You accuse others of not understanding the weather and then you post this? When weather deteriorates it does so gradually. Not all at once.

Oh yes? Have a look at the current short weather forecast here, just to take a day at random:-

TAF EGLL 280603Z 280716 16018G28KT 9000 -RA BKN020

TEMPO 0715 RA BKN014 PROB40

TEMPO 0712 4000 BKN009

BECMG 1113 24015G30KT 9999 PROB30

TEMPO 1416 5000 +SHRA SCT020CB

Now I dare you to tell me that a hypothetical aircraft with minimums of 1500 feet which is already en route to London will - guaranteed - have no weather difficulty in landing first time when it arrives here in 4 hours' time. And it isn't even a bad weather day here today.

How do you get 20 plans sitting on a taxi way with no open gates? Where did all these planes come from? Are you claiming 20 planes landed in the same amount of time? Show me one airport where flights are scheduled this closely.

Now, let me have a look at my local two-runway airport's schedule for arriving flights between 0601 and 0900 this morning (after doing my best to strip out the codeshare duplicates):-

06:20 BA206 MIAMI

06:20 BA294 CHICAGO

06:20 CX255 HONG KONG

06:20 QF031 SYDNEY VIA SINGAPORE

06:20 TG910 BANGKOK

06:20 UA918 SAN DIEGO VIA WASHINGTON

06:20 VS004 NEW YORK

06:20 VS201 SYDNEY VIA HONG KONG

06:25 AA100 NEW YORK

06:25 AC856 TORONTO

06:25 BA072 MUSCAT VIA ABU DHABI

06:25 BA092 TORONTO

06:25 BA112 NEW YORK

06:25 QF001 SYDNEY VIA BANGKOK

06:25 SA234 JOHANNESBURG

06:25 SV107 RIYADH VIA JEDDAH

06:30 BA124 DOHA VIA BAHRAIN

06:35 AA108 BOSTON

06:35 AA7679 BAHRAIN

06:35 AI112 NEW YORK

06:35 BA054 JOHANNESBURG

06:35 GF007 BAHRAIN

06:35 MK042 MAURITIUS

06:35 UA930 SAN DIEGO VIA SAN FRANCISCO

06:40 BA078 ACCRA

06:40 BA106 DUBAI

06:40 BI097 BANDAR VIA DUBAI

06:45 BA058 CAPE TOWN

06:45 BA184 NEWARK

06:50 AA086 CHICAGO

06:50 BA066 PHILADELPHIA

06:50 BA216 WASHINGTON

06:50 VS602 JOHANNESBURG

06:55 AA122 NEW YORK

06:55 BA174 NEW YORK

06:55 SA220 CAPE TOWN

07:00 9W120 MUMBAI

07:00 AC888 OTTAWA

07:00 BA881 MOSCOW

07:00 UA928 PORTLAND VIA CHICAGO

07:05 BA138 MUMBAI

07:05 EK007 DUBAI

07:05 EY011 ABU DHABI

07:05 VS022 WASHINGTON

07:10 BA094 MONTREAL

07:10 KL1331 ROTTERDAM

07:15 BA246 BUENOS AIRES VIA SAO PAULO

07:15 VS012 BOSTON

07:20 BA1473 GLASGOW

07:20 BA296 CHICAGO

07:20 LG4401 LUXEMBOURG

07:20 SA236 JOHANNESBURG

07:25 BA142 DELHI

07:25 LH4770 DUSSELDORF

07:30 AC864 MONTREAL

07:30 BA389 BRUSSELS

07:30 KL991 EINDHOVEN

07:30 SN5389 BRUSSELS

07:35 BA1321 NEWCASTLE

07:35 LH4780 STUTTGART

07:40 AA104 NEW YORK

07:40 BA176 NEW YORK

07:40 BD100 AMSTERDAM

07:40 BD140 BRUSSELS

07:40 KL1001 AMSTERDAM

07:40 LH6580 AMSTERDAM

07:45 BA228 BALTIMORE

07:45 BA423 AMSTERDAM

07:50 AF2670 PARIS CDG

07:50 BA214 BOSTON

07:50 BD581 MANCHESTER

07:50 VS046 NEW YORK

07:55 BA1433 EDINBURGH

08:00 BA365 LYON

08:00 BA751 BASEL

08:00 BD001 GLASGOW

08:00 BD051 EDINBURGH

08:05 BA1301 ABERDEEN

08:05 BA709 ZURICH

08:05 EI152 DUBLIN

08:05 LX316 ZURICH

08:10 BA1385 MANCHESTER

08:10 BD081 BELFAST CITY

08:10 LH4722 FRANKFURT

08:15 BA116 NEW YORK

08:15 BA303 PARIS CDG

08:15 BD120 DUBLIN

08:15 BD411 LEEDS/BRADFORD

08:15 BD671 ABERDEEN

08:25 AC848 TORONTO

08:25 AF1170 PARIS CDG

08:25 LH4790 HAMBURG

08:25 SK523 GOTHENBURG

08:30 BA455 MADRID

08:30 LH4750 MUNICH

08:35 AC860 HALIFAX

08:35 BA114 NEW YORK

08:35 BA723 GENEVA

08:35 BA901 FRANKFURT

08:35 OS451 VIENNA

08:35 SK501 COPENHAGEN

08:45 AZ226 MILAN-LINATE

08:45 BA188 NEWARK

08:50 VS040 CHICAGO

09:00 BA477 BARCELONA

09:00 BA561 MILAN-LINATE

09:00 BA771 STOCKHOLM

09:00 BA795 HELSINKI

09:00 EI710 CORK

09:00 IB7450 BARCELONA

09:00 KL1007 AMSTERDAM

09:00 KU102 NEW YORK

09:00 VS604 CAPE TOWN

After all, when things have gone as badly wrong as the ones you're banging on about, it's been at airports like this, not at two-bit airports than only ever see little aircraft like 737s.

 

Where did I last get stuck on the tarmac for hours because there were no open gates for us to go back to? DXB - which would be typical of the airports where things have got snarled up, other than that there is no snow there.

Yet, if I read your statement, you believe it is better to have the passengers of twenty planes going nowhere wait ten hours then to have the first group off in 20 minutes, the second group off in 40 minutes, the third group off in one hour, the sixth group off in two hours, the ninth group off in three hours (so now 45% of the people are no longer stuck on the planes) ... until the last group is taken off in 400 minutes.

Have you actually read a single word of what I've written? What I have said is that there will occasionally be times when things will go so badly wrong that this will happen - not that it should.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

And you think the airlines don't know that? You think that the airlines don't have plans and implement them? You think that the airlines want the bad publicity, loss of revenue and expense caused by incidents such as this?

 

This is the second time you have brought up that airlines have a plan and know how to implement them. Obviously the plan they have now isnt working or people wouldnt be stuck on the ground in a metal tube for 10 hours with no food, water or sanitation! Please! Please tell me what the plan is!! You must know what it is!

 

If the current plans were working the CEO's of airlines wouldnt be on the Today show apologizing and creating passenger bill of rights such as the case with JetBlue. Continental has had the same issue in the past as well.

 

Snow storms just dont sneak up on airports and take everyone by surprise. They know its coming. And yet they still act totally surprised and end up acting like the keystone cops.

 

So please share with all of us the grand plan that the airlines have to keep this sort of thing from happening and then write the airlines and tell them how to put those plans into motion because obviously they dont know what they are doing.

 

I am serious. Tell us what the plans are and why they are not put into motion when things like this happen.

[ClipperMiami]

Obviously then don't have a plan that works or people wouldnt be sitting on a plane for 10 hours with no food' date=' water or means to relieve him/herself. If they do have plan then its not working is it? Are you saying that the plan that airlines have in place now are adequate and no room for improvement?

 

And yes accurately predicting the weather is a possible. If the weatherman says Chicago is going to get 10 inches of snow tomorrow morning should the airlines just say...naw it aint gonna happen. That couldnt possibly be accurate. Weather guessing is not 100% but its darn near close.

 

There have been many cases where the airline knew that the destination weather was bad and still let a plane take off anyway! What happens then? The plane is diverted far away from the destination. Sometimes its better not to load a plane at all than to have it take off and play games with people.

 

Passengers sometimes do know a better way of doing things. Sometimes you need someone from the outside looking in to tell you whats right in front of your face! The airlines sure as hell cant get it right. If they could they would have a far better product than they do now. How many went bust or are in bankruptcy now? Dont blame fuel prices. A lot of the US carriers were in trouble before the huge spike in fuel prices.[/quote']But out of the millions of flights that take place every year in this country the situation in question happened what, once, twice? In general the airline industry does a pretty good job, even when the situation deteriorates rapidly as it did in that incident. Sometimes though "the gods" conspire to teach us mortals that we are not all powerful :-)

 

Once upon a time we would have looked at that situation and said gee, what a mess, that's too bad but you can't cover everything. Now we sit back and demand regulation and legislation to "protect" us, or worse we sue ---- more nanny state-ism. The carrier in question, jetBlue, was punished in the marketplace for their poor judgment --- as they should be.

 

If people want to get incensed about something, get incensed about the TSA and the incompetence of their pretend security. You are going to spend a lot longer in endless TSA lines in a year of travel than you will ever spend sitting on an airplane going nowhere.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

JetBlue was not the only incident. There have been other incidents with other airlines as well.

 

Bottom line people should not be held hostage on a cramped airplane for hours and hours against their will! If they try to leave they face arrest! No food, water or functioning restroom facilities is not humane. PERIOD. BOTTOM LINE. If you cant get the people off the ground dont put them on the plane to begin with.

 

How many times does this have to happen before enough is enough?

[alphakitty]

Here's my back up plan....bring my own food/water on all flights and wear Depends! :D

 

Sorry, just thought I'd try to add some levity into this conversation. ;)

[Globaliser]

JetBlue was not the only incident. There have been other incidents with other airlines as well.

...

How many times does this have to happen before enough is enough?

Off the top of my head' date=' I can only remember two serious incidents: one involving Northwest, and one involving JetBlue.

 

Every airline has plans that are put into operation whenever there's severe weather. And most of the time it works perfectly. Maybe you never notice. Maybe you never even think about it.

 

Or maybe you just complain about it - like cancelled flights and delays - without realising that you are actually getting the benefit of the plan, even though there's a downside. But then, that's just a characteristic of some passengers, who will complain about every single thing that is not absolutely perfect.

 

Basically, what you are asking for is a plan that works perfectly every time, without exception - or else the airline should be crucified. And that is why it is utterly unreasonable.

 

BTW, the update to the earlier weather forecast is that current conditions here are:-

EGLL 281520Z 25019KT 9999 FEW042 13/04 Q0993

So much for your theory that weather can be accurately forecast.

[cruzegirl]

And you think the airlines don't know that? You think that the airlines don't have plans and implement them? You think that the airlines want the bad publicity, loss of revenue and expense caused by incidents such as this?

 

Is it really beyond your imagination to understand that when these incidents happen, as infrequently as they do, it's because even the best plans sometimes go wrong?

 

Or are you determined to adhere to your view that the airlines don't have any plans and actually just don't care? How, then, do you explain that in 99.9% of incidents or more, the airlines' plans actually work out and nobody gets stuck on any aircraft despite the filthy weather? Is it just easier to ignore the times when things go right, or are you just being plain prejudiced?No, not a stake. Just a fair amount of personal experience as a passenger (about 100,000 miles flown each year), and a resulting lifelong interest in the way the industry works, what makes it tick, what is possible and what is not, and how everything is held together despite the tiny fares that we pay today for air travel. After all, on my most frequent long-haul route, I can often get a ticket now for about half of the cost of the same ticket in 1976, when I first started flying it routinely - before you take inflation into account.

 

If they have such good plans, if they work so well as you insist on saying, then why are people on a tarmac for 10 hours?? Weather can be a big issue I agree. But there is usually pretty good warning. And again, if there's a question. Don't put them on the plane. Let those people stay there, in the airport. Then move that plane and bring the just landed folks in.

 

So you may think this odd, but I happen to prefer to take a balanced view of the whole situation from everyone's point of view, and not look at things only from the viewpoint of the "poor caged passenger", who (although important) is not the only consideration here.

 

And I don't think your view is as balanced as you try to put out there. FYI-It comes across very one sided.

 

And yes, you are absolutely right that we have different standards here in Europe. We have consumer protection legislation that you do not, that creates directly enforceable passenger rights against airlines in the case of cancellations, delays, and denied boarding. As it happens, it's been a mixed blessing: the airlines that used to be more generous than the legislation now requires have become less generous; but other airlines have had to start looking after their customers when they didn't do so before.

 

But that legislation also recognises - as you do not - that sometimes things will go very wrong despite everyone's best efforts. The legislation does not sit back and luxuriantly say, "They must be able to do something, and I refuse to listen to any explanations of why it isn't possible."So presumably, you side with Michael Gianaris, the Democratic assemblyman from Queens who said, "One would struggle to find examples as outrageous as those faced by passenger on these planes"?

 

Well, if so, you're entitled to your (and his) hyperbole. But I think it is worth taking just a moment to step back, take a good look at the world, and see just how ridiculous that statement is.I would expect that if the federal government proposed a law, it would do so with all the knowledge and experience of the FAA behind it, and adopt a sensible attitude to the extreme situations that we have been discussing in this thread, rather than the absolutist approach espoused by you and cruzegirl.

 

Wow.. What a big word. I think some of your posts have been "hyperbole" as well. Maybe we all are so passionate that we all exaggerate and can only see our side of this.

Of course we all know things go wrong and are sometimes beyond our control. But for the airlines to deny that any of that was wrong in the first place and not act accordingly, that's why I get so hot over it. I'm so annoyed with corporate america and other countries saying for us to just deal with it. So many people and companies out there refuse to take accountability for their actions. I'm sick of it.

But what I'm also sick of Globaliser, is you attacking me and Cuizer2. I've tried not to do that. I've tried to debate your words without being personal. Between your labels of "armchair quarterback" and the words with "YOU, YOU, YOU" in them. They are nasty and if you can't be civil, maybe you shouldn't be posting!! I feel as if it's become personal with you. But you know what, that's why this Nation is great. We can have this debate, put our opinions out there and still go on about life. I disagree with you and you with me..... Let's leave it at that.... I'm tired of arguing with someone who is so stuck on their ideas that can't see what we were talking about. Someone who thinks it's wrong for passengers to be protected. This thread has lost it's charm. And not because you don't agree with me, I could care less. But because you've become nasty..... Enough is enough.......

[cruzegirl]

Here's my back up plan....bring my own food/water on all flights and wear Depends! :D

 

Sorry, just thought I'd try to add some levity into this conversation. ;)

 

Good try Kitty.....lol......

I'm with you though. I think my carry on will now include, more water, more snacks and a box of depends.... jk.... It's crazy.....

[Cuizer2]

 

Now, let me have a look at my local two-runway airport's schedule for arriving flights between 0601 and 0900 this morning (after doing my best to strip out the codeshare duplicates):-

06:20 BA206 MIAMI

06:20 BA294 CHICAGO

06:20 CX255 HONG KONG

06:20 QF031 SYDNEY VIA SINGAPORE

06:20 TG910 BANGKOK

06:20 UA918 SAN DIEGO VIA WASHINGTON

06:20 VS004 NEW YORK

06:20 VS201 SYDNEY VIA HONG KONG

06:25 AA100 NEW YORK

06:25 AC856 TORONTO

06:25 BA072 MUSCAT VIA ABU DHABI

06:25 BA092 TORONTO

06:25 BA112 NEW YORK

06:25 QF001 SYDNEY VIA BANGKOK

06:25 SA234 JOHANNESBURG

06:25 SV107 RIYADH VIA JEDDAH

06:30 BA124 DOHA VIA BAHRAIN

06:35 AA108 BOSTON

06:35 AA7679 BAHRAIN

06:35 AI112 NEW YORK

06:35 BA054 JOHANNESBURG

06:35 GF007 BAHRAIN

06:35 MK042 MAURITIUS

06:35 UA930 SAN DIEGO VIA SAN FRANCISCO

06:40 BA078 ACCRA

06:40 BA106 DUBAI

06:40 BI097 BANDAR VIA DUBAI

06:45 BA058 CAPE TOWN

06:45 BA184 NEWARK

06:50 AA086 CHICAGO

06:50 BA066 PHILADELPHIA

06:50 BA216 WASHINGTON

06:50 VS602 JOHANNESBURG

06:55 AA122 NEW YORK

06:55 BA174 NEW YORK

06:55 SA220 CAPE TOWN

07:00 9W120 MUMBAI

07:00 AC888 OTTAWA

07:00 BA881 MOSCOW

07:00 UA928 PORTLAND VIA CHICAGO

07:05 BA138 MUMBAI

07:05 EK007 DUBAI

07:05 EY011 ABU DHABI

07:05 VS022 WASHINGTON

07:10 BA094 MONTREAL

07:10 KL1331 ROTTERDAM

07:15 BA246 BUENOS AIRES VIA SAO PAULO

07:15 VS012 BOSTON

07:20 BA1473 GLASGOW

07:20 BA296 CHICAGO

07:20 LG4401 LUXEMBOURG

07:20 SA236 JOHANNESBURG

07:25 BA142 DELHI

07:25 LH4770 DUSSELDORF

07:30 AC864 MONTREAL

07:30 BA389 BRUSSELS

07:30 KL991 EINDHOVEN

07:30 SN5389 BRUSSELS

07:35 BA1321 NEWCASTLE

07:35 LH4780 STUTTGART

07:40 AA104 NEW YORK

07:40 BA176 NEW YORK

07:40 BD100 AMSTERDAM

07:40 BD140 BRUSSELS

07:40 KL1001 AMSTERDAM

07:40 LH6580 AMSTERDAM

07:45 BA228 BALTIMORE

07:45 BA423 AMSTERDAM

07:50 AF2670 PARIS CDG

07:50 BA214 BOSTON

07:50 BD581 MANCHESTER

07:50 VS046 NEW YORK

07:55 BA1433 EDINBURGH

08:00 BA365 LYON

08:00 BA751 BASEL

08:00 BD001 GLASGOW

08:00 BD051 EDINBURGH

08:05 BA1301 ABERDEEN

08:05 BA709 ZURICH

08:05 EI152 DUBLIN

08:05 LX316 ZURICH

08:10 BA1385 MANCHESTER

08:10 BD081 BELFAST CITY

08:10 LH4722 FRANKFURT

08:15 BA116 NEW YORK

08:15 BA303 PARIS CDG

08:15 BD120 DUBLIN

08:15 BD411 LEEDS/BRADFORD

08:15 BD671 ABERDEEN

08:25 AC848 TORONTO

08:25 AF1170 PARIS CDG

08:25 LH4790 HAMBURG

08:25 SK523 GOTHENBURG

08:30 BA455 MADRID

08:30 LH4750 MUNICH

08:35 AC860 HALIFAX

08:35 BA114 NEW YORK

08:35 BA723 GENEVA

08:35 BA901 FRANKFURT

08:35 OS451 VIENNA

08:35 SK501 COPENHAGEN

08:45 AZ226 MILAN-LINATE

08:45 BA188 NEWARK

08:50 VS040 CHICAGO

09:00 BA477 BARCELONA

09:00 BA561 MILAN-LINATE

09:00 BA771 STOCKHOLM

09:00 BA795 HELSINKI

09:00 EI710 CORK

09:00 IB7450 BARCELONA

09:00 KL1007 AMSTERDAM

09:00 KU102 NEW YORK

09:00 VS604 CAPE TOWN

 

Leaving out all the points you made where it is basically your opinion is different than mine, we have the above. If I count right, there are 113 planes arriving to this unknown airport over 160 minutes. You are trying to show that 20 planes could get stuck without a gate with this example.

 

This is just another example of you trying to baffle us with BS because, these are regularly scheduled flights. So either there is already an open gate waiting for these planes or they would not be scheduled to land.

 

So again, how do you get 20 planes stuck on a runway without any gate to go to?

[Cuizer2]

So presumably, you side with Michael Gianaris, the Democratic assemblyman from Queens who said, "One would struggle to find examples as outrageous as those faced by passenger on these planes"?

 

Well, if so, you're entitled to your (and his) hyperbole. But I think it is worth taking just a moment to step back, take a good look at the world, and see just how ridiculous that statement is.I would expect that if the federal government proposed a law, it would do so with all the knowledge and experience of the FAA behind it, and adopt a sensible attitude to the extreme situations that we have been discussing in this thread, rather than the absolutist approach espoused by you and cruzegirl.

Actually I found someone else who agrees with us - Jetblue itself ...

 

Calling Wednesday's delays "unacceptable," the airline planned to offer the affected passengers refunds and free flights.

 

I repeat - Calling Wednesday's delays "unacceptable," the airline planned to offer the affected passengers refunds and free flights.

 

Note the word is unacceptable - not unavoidable.

 

Here is a link to the article ...

 

http://cbs2.com/national/jetblue.tarmac.JFK.2.279800.html

[Cuizer2]

So you may think this odd, but I happen to prefer to take a balanced view of the whole situation from everyone's point of view, and not look at things only from the viewpoint of the "poor caged passenger", who (although important) is not the only consideration here.

Balanced view??? You've got to be kidding. Your posts are so pro-airline and anti passenger that I believe you work for and have a big stake in one or more of the airlines.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Ok I see Globaliser cant come up with an answer to my question.

 

WHAT IS THE PLAN! AND HOW COME THE AIRLINES CANNOT PUT IT INTO MOTION WHEN NEEDED?

 

You claim to be the expert around here and everyone else is ignorant.

 

You came up with two airlines I came up with another if you had bothered to read my entire post. :rolleyes:

 

So you claim to know that the airlines know what to do in these (rare) situations but they arent doing it. What is the plan and why arent they putting them into motion. Answer please. NO DANCING! Just the facts.

 

Why were these people left on planes for so long with no help?

[Globaliser]

Of course we all know things go wrong and are sometimes beyond our control. But for the airlines to deny that any of that was wrong in the first place and not act accordingly, that's why I get so hot over it.

I'm sorry if you think that I've been attacking you. That hasn't been my intention. But I do speak (write/type) bluntly, so I'm sorry if that's how it has come across.

 

But I don't see any of the airlines involved, or any other airlines, pretending that there was nothing wrong in the first place. Each airline that's become involved has been mortally embarrassed by the incident, and they've gone on record apologising for the fact that things got screwed up. As you recognise, not every plan can go right every time. Most of the time, the plan goes right, because most of the time nobody gets trapped on aircraft, even though the weather outside is atrocious. The very small handful of incidents in which many passengers have been trapped for hours have been when the plans haven't worked as they should, and something has gone unexpectedly wrong.

 

Things shouldn't go wrong like this. But it's unreasonable to say that it's easy - or even possible - for airlines to guarantee that they will never go wrong, particularly in a bad weather situation when every operation and move is constantly balancing on the knife edge of "yes we can", "no we can't", "yes we can", "no we can't".

[Globaliser]

If I count right, there are 113 planes arriving to this unknown airport over 160 minutes. You are trying to show that 20 planes could get stuck without a gate with this example.

 

This is just another example of you trying to baffle us with BS because, these are regularly scheduled flights. So either there is already an open gate waiting for these planes or they would not be scheduled to land.

 

So again, how do you get 20 planes stuck on a runway without any gate to go to?

It's certainly not an unknown airport. It shouldn't take very long to work out which one it is.

 

And no, this airport often does not always have enough open gates waiting for these aircraft when they land, even on a normal day. If a departing flight is just 5 or 10 minutes late pushing back, that often delays the arriving flight before reaching the gate. Like at most similarly-congested airports around the world, it's quite common for arriving aircraft to have to sit around on the tarmac for 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes or more after landing, just waiting for a gate or even a remote stand to come free. I spend quite a lot of my life doing exactly that after landing here.

 

So throw in some bad weather with conditions which are sometimes above minimums and sometimes below minimums, varying on a minute-by-minute basis, and some bad luck - and yes, you could easily get everything seized up.

 

BTW - most of the aircraft on that list probably cannot be unloaded in 20 minutes using a single set of stairs. They're too big.