Well intentioned law stuck down

[Cuizer2]

I'm sure there will be people who will say that my ego doesn't need any more inflating. ;)

 

And, I believe that picture was taken mid-morning on a Sunday morning, which is one of the quieter times at Heathrow.

I'm tired of playing your little games. You don't have the foggiest idea what day of the week those pictures were take. Just because the pictures don't support you position doesn't mean you get to pick when the pictures were taken.

 

But as long as we get to make unfounded assumptions, then I'm guessing the pictures were taken during the busiest time of the busiest day of of the week, and all you want to do is create controversy.

 

Either start providing some actual facts to support your position, not some wild a$$ guess based on what supports your position best, or don't expect any more replies from me. I'm tired of replying to someone who when he can't support his position makes up unsupported "facts" in the hope that someone with any common sense will not read it and exposed it for the dribble that it actually is.

 

And if you are going to be a wise guy, at least spell stake correctly (a steak is something completely different).

[Globaliser]

You don't have the foggiest idea what day of the week those pictures were take.

Let me see. Go east from Heathrow and see the current Google images across the whole of central London - it looks to me like Google is curently using imagery taken on a stunning fine and cloudless winter morning.* It's a continuous sweep, all looking to me like it was taken at the same time.

 

Now, keep going until you reach London City Airport. Do you notice anything about the apron in front of the terminal? Empty. Now, I wonder why that is? Could it be because it's Sunday morning? Could it be that there are no operating aircaft because LCY is closed between lunchtime Saturday and lunchtime Sunday every week?**

 

Hmm. Let me see. Is it such a "wild a$$ guess" that the image of Heathrow was also taken on the same Sunday morning? Perhaps it's also just an unfounded assumption that the image was taken on a day with no weather delays? I'm probably making up even the unsupported assertion that the sun was shining that day.

 

Who knows?

 

And who knows how long aircraft sit around on the tarmac for, even on a day like this, waiting for their gate to come free. I've certainly got no idea. I only fly into Heathrow about once a month. What could I possibly know about this?

 

Anyway, I'm so sorry that this is tiring you. Game over. Thank you for playing. And now, back to our regularly-scheduled programming, which includes me attempting to give advice to other CC members about their air travel, on the basis of unfounded assumptions, wild guesses, and totally fabricated misinformation.

 

* Whoops, did I say that? Maybe the the angle of the shadows and their length don't indicate anything about the time of the year or the time of the day. Maybe the sun rises in the west in the UK, and I'd never noticed. Perhaps I'm even imagining the cloudlessness of the sky. Maybe it's just another of my baseless assumptions with no facts.

 

** Whoops, did I say that? Maybe I'm just imagining that LCY has a weekly closure period. Maybe it's only a figment of my imagination that this requirement was imposed on them right from the beginning as a condition of their operations. Maybe I'm really just making this all up.

[cruzegirl]

Well Hallelujah.....The Passenger Bill of Rights law is being revisited. As it should after the last 2 weeks with canceled flights. These airlines need to get it together..... :(

[Cuizer2]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349828,00.html

 

The legislation does not deal specifically with canceled flights that never board, but Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said it is important for Congress to stick up for passengers in the face of what she called the airlines' indifference.

 

"They are so arrogant about it," said Boxer. "If this Congress fails, shame on all of us, Democrats, Republicans, chairmen, ranking members."

 

Sounds like someone who has been posting on this thread.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Don't worry about it Cuizer2, we have already exposed that poster for what he is or isnt I should say. LOL. ;)

[Cuizer2]

Don't worry about it Cuizer2' date=' we have already exposed that poster for what he is or isnt I should say. LOL. ;)[/quote']I didn't name any names. :rolleyes:

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

You did'nt have to. It was obvious to me LOL. (I know it isn't me) :D

[Cuizer2]

You did'nt have to. It was obvious to me LOL. (I know it isn't me) :D

No, its not you. Nonetheless, no matter how "obvious" it might be, I didn't name any names.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

I am on your side remember? I have been since you started the post.

 

I wont stick up for ya anymore. Sorry.

[cruzegirl]

Ok, you 2 just confused the heck out of me......

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Dont worry about it. Someone is having a bad day. lol

 

No big whoop.

[Cuizer2]

I am on your side remember? I have been since you started the post.

 

I wont stick up for ya anymore. Sorry.

 

Check out this future Mensa member ...

 

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=7337292

[Cuizer2]

Ok, you 2 just confused the heck out of me......

We are just having a little fun. :)

[Globaliser]

The Passenger Bill of Rights law is being revisited. As it should after the last 2 weeks with canceled flights.

Well, that bill will really help passengers who never got anywhere near an aircraft, who were rebooked onto other flights at no extra cost, including on other airlines where necessary, and were given food and hotel accommodation where their plans were seriously disrupted and they had to stay somewhere unexpectedly overnight.

 

So what's a bill going to achieve for these passengers? Maybe it should provide that Gerald Arpey should personally come and lick their shoes?

[Cuizer2]

Well, that bill will really help passengers who never got anywhere near an aircraft, who were rebooked onto other flights at no extra cost, including on other airlines where necessary, and were given food and hotel accommodation where their plans were seriously disrupted and they had to stay somewhere unexpectedly overnight.

 

So what's a bill going to achieve for these passengers? Maybe it should provide that Gerald Arpey should personally come and lick their shoes?

 

If you bothered to read it, you would see that it does not address the issue you wrote about, but rather the original issue that this thread was about - planes holding passengers hostage.

[Preds]

So come on, can you work out how? You're intelligent enough to criticise, so presumably you've worked out some way of doing it better?

 

"Don't leave the gate." Great one! What are you going to do with the landing flights? Leave them out on the tarmac because they now haven't got a gate because you're sitting on it? Remember: they can't take off again for the same reason you can't take off - so don't think of suggesting that as a solution.

 

Doesn't matter when it's someone else's flight does it? As long as you're alright.

 

Armchair quarterbacks have such a cushy life. They can just sit there and say "the airline can do better" while being absolutely clueless as to how to can be done better - yet at the same time, saying that the airline is lying when it says it can't.

Why is it so difficult to pull into a gate, unload the passengers, and pull out to the tarmac so the next plane can pull in and do the same in these situations?

 

There really is no reason to leave the plane at the gate. They could easily pull it away (empty) to keep the gate accessible for other flights.

[greatam]

Why is it so difficult to pull into a gate, unload the passengers, and pull out to the tarmac so the next plane can pull in and do the same in these situations?

 

There really is no reason to leave the plane at the gate. They could easily pull it away (empty) to keep the gate accessible for other flights.

 

When there is a "ground hold/stop" at an airport, there can be NO baggage handlers, tractor drivers, forklift drivers or "plane guiders" on the tarmac. Not only do airports have these rules, but unions do to. So between the two, there really is no way to get the planes in and out of the gates until the ground stop is lifted.

[Cuizer2]

When there is a "ground hold/stop" at an airport, there can be NO baggage handlers, tractor drivers, forklift drivers or "plane guiders" on the tarmac. Not only do airports have these rules, but unions do to. So between the two, there really is no way to get the planes in and out of the gates until the ground stop is lifted.

Well, if there is nobody on the tarmac when a ground stop is in place, then who is going to pick up the ground stop so the people can go back out and work? :confused:

 

Sounds like a Catch 22 situation to me. Nobody can work while a ground stop is in place and thus nobody can go out and lift the ground stop so the people can work. :eek: Apparently once there is a ground stop, the only option left is to built a new airport. Maybe that is how Denver got its new airport. :rolleyes:

 

Or maybe they'll do what they are doing at LAX and use an off site facility. Let me tell you, if you thought traffic was bad at LAX before, you should see what it is like with two or three 747s in bumper to bumper (or would that be nose to tail) traffic on the freeway.

[cruzegirl]

Well, that bill will really help passengers who never got anywhere near an aircraft, who were rebooked onto other flights at no extra cost, including on other airlines where necessary, and were given food and hotel accommodation where their plans were seriously disrupted and they had to stay somewhere unexpectedly overnight.

 

So what's a bill going to achieve for these passengers? Maybe it should provide that Gerald Arpey should personally come and lick their shoes?

 

You've got to be flippin kidding me!!! Your still holding your position? Amazing. What airline do you work for? lol. I mean seriously. That original bill was to protect those held hostage on the plane, tarmac or anywere else they cannot leave of their own free will. And now we need to somehow include protection for passengers where stunts like currently pulled by American and Southwest. Those airlines should have to provide compensation for cancellation of those flights at no expense to the passenger. If they did, if they put them up in hotels, or found them other flights... Then that's the right thing to do. But many sat stranded in those airports for hours and some for a couple of days. And for something that could have been prevented, done earlier and properly.....

[Globaliser]

If you bothered to read it, you would see that it does not address the issue you wrote about, but rather the original issue that this thread was about - planes holding passengers hostage.

Precisely. Despite the attempt by cruzegirl to link them, the current problems are totally unrelated to the ones that caused that bill to be proposed. Whatever position you take about those problems, they're nothing to do with the current issues.

And now we need to somehow include protection for passengers where stunts like currently pulled by American and Southwest. Those airlines should have to provide compensation for cancellation of those flights at no expense to the passenger. If they did, if they put them up in hotels, or found them other flights... Then that's the right thing to do.

If you'd bothered to read anything about the current issues, you'd see that:-

1. The "stunts" have been pulled by the FAA, not by the airlines. While the airlines haven't done what they should have done, what they've done isn't exactly unusual. What is unusual is the FAA's hysterical over-reaction on this occasion, caused by politics that have got nothing to do with safety.
2. This time, the airlines are finding alternative flights for passengers, including endorsing them to other airlines. They are having to provide food and hotel accommodation for those who are stranded. This is already all required of them. And they are doing it.

But, hey, let's not allow the facts to stand in the way of another good kick at the airlines, eh? Very inconvenient, facts.

[Globaliser]

Why is it so difficult to pull into a gate, unload the passengers, and pull out to the tarmac so the next plane can pull in and do the same in these situations?

To cut a very long discussion short (see many, many posts on this thread already): gates already full/re-filled, with scheduling already gone to pot because of the conditions; operations continuing in unpredictable and marginal conditions to try to keep aircraft and passengers moving as much as possible; conditions becoming too bad for doing the outdoors work that would be necessary; sheer pressure of time; and a healthy dose of bad luck.

 

Not all airports are vulnerable to these problems, because many don't work under the sort of pressure as the airports at which these problems have (very rarely) occurred. Despite the pressure, most of the time it still runs OK because the airlines' contingency plans work. But once in a blue moon, things just go wrong. And at airports like that, they can go very badly wrong very quickly.

[cruzegirl]

Precisely. Despite the attempt by cruzegirl to link them, the current problems are totally unrelated to the ones that caused that bill to be proposed. Whatever position you take about those problems, they're nothing to do with the current issues.If you'd bothered to read anything about the current issues, you'd see that:-

1. The "stunts" have been pulled by the FAA, not by the airlines. While the airlines haven't done what they should have done, what they've done isn't exactly unusual. What is unusual is the FAA's hysterical over-reaction on this occasion, caused by politics that have got nothing to do with safety.
   
2. This time, the airlines are finding alternative flights for passengers, including endorsing them to other airlines. They are having to provide food and hotel accommodation for those who are stranded. This is already all required of them. And they are doing it.

But, hey, let's not allow the facts to stand in the way of another good kick at the airlines, eh? Very inconvenient, facts.

 

You sure like turning things around don't you.... I never said the 2 things were related. Just because I mentioned the situations/issues in the same paragraph and that the legislation to protect the passengers needs to go through, doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to think they are one in the same. No matter how much you try to insinuate that. I was glad they are revisiting the legislation realizing that passengers need to be taken care of when airlines don't do "the right thing".

And as I ALSO said, if American did put those passengers up, if they did help them find other flights and help cover costs. Yeah. Hallelujah. That's the right thing to do. It's called good PR and taking care of your customers. Which seems to have gone wayside in many businesses these days.

These airlines knew these inspections needed to be done. They chose not to do it in a timely manner. And then got busted. Over reacting or not, the FAA has the responsibility to make sure the planes are inspected and safe. And if the airlines can't do it like they are supposed to, acting like little kids, "I don't want to", then the FAA has to enforce those regulations. What if those planes had flown and accidents had happened??? What if people had died??? I imagine you would have thought the airlines weren't responsible as well!! Well they are responsible for our safety Mr. Like it or not they are liable.

It reminds me of the hospital accreditation assoc. JAACHO. The hospitals know they have to make things safe, provide safe staffing, look after their patients. But do they always do the right thing? Provide the safety patients deserve? No! Therefore, JAACHO comes along and HAS to make them do it with inspections. Makes them do something they should already be doing anyways. It's ridiculous.....

By the way, American Airlines is my airline of choice. I'm a frequent flyer. I prefer them always. And I'm flying on them next month for vacation. But I also have the right to expect them to provide for my safety in a reasonable fashion. Obviously, "s*it happens" and I hope not when I'm on them. But if I was delayed because of something they should have done a month ago, I would be ticked off. And that is my right.

I just wonder if/when any of this happens to you if you'll feel differently.... Would be interesting to see....

[cruzegirl]

And by the way, your above post with Cuizer2's comment and then your response as if he was responding to me, not correct... Revisit that. He was addressing you......Amazing.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Globaliser

Well, that bill will really help passengers who never got anywhere near an aircraft, who were rebooked onto other flights at no extra cost, including on other airlines where necessary, and were given food and hotel accommodation where their plans were seriously disrupted and they had to stay somewhere unexpectedly overnight.

 

So what's a bill going to achieve for these passengers? Maybe it should provide that Gerald Arpey should personally come and lick their shoes?

 

If you bothered to read it, you would see that it does not address the issue you wrote about, but rather the original issue that this thread was about - planes holding passengers hostage

[Globaliser]

These airlines knew these inspections needed to be done. They chose not to do it in a timely manner. And then got busted. ... What if those planes had flown and accidents had happened??? What if people had died???

As far as AA is concerned, "choosing not to do it in a timely manner" is not what happened. If you want to see what happened try this post, which brings together things that other CC members have seen.

 

The FAA may have been within its strict rights to do what it did, and nobody is suggesting that AA shouldn't have been in this position. But there are many people who quite rightly think that if anyone's behaving like a child throwing toys out of the pram over this issue, it's the FAA.

 

And scaremongering about potential accidents doesn't help. This was not a short-term safety of flight issue. Nothing was going to fall out of the air if the work had been scheduled over, say 20 days instead of having to be done before any further revenue service.

I just wonder if/when any of this happens to you if you'll feel differently.... Would be interesting to see....

Been there, done that. If one flies enough, it'll happen. Although I haven't been caught up in the recent messes, I know that if I'd been inconvenienced by the AA one, it'd be the FAA I'd be screaming at.

[cruzegirl]

Wow. After what happened today with Taca airlines at Ontario, California, one can only hope the officials are revisiting that law or proposition to help protect passengers. Unbelievable.

 

Has anyone heard the latest on that Bill?