Above my pay grade. Sorry.

Julia's half-witted obfuscation aside, your solution is perfectly reasonable . . . so why haven't the airlines implemented it?

I find it interesting that we have now exchanged three times, and neither you (nor Julia) have answered the point that the airlines had YEARS to solve this problem and did less than nothing.

Why?

LT,

I guess you"ll have to be clearer on exactly what problem it is that airlines have had years to solve and did less than nothing.

Is it passengers being left to rot on airplanes? Lost Bags? Ticket prices too low?

If it is passengers being stuck on airplanes as this is what PBR addresses then I suggest the facts do not support your position that airlines did less than nothing.

As I previously stated, airlines cancelled many flights ahead of bad weather even before the new legislation passed.

Also, many airlines came up with their own passenger's bill of rights and made this readily available in print form at ticket counters and boarding areas.

In the past 10 years, I can think of less that 10 incidents of passengers being stuck on airplanes. To my knowledge none of them were not weather related.

Since NWA incident in 1999 (Major Snowstorm), I can only think of AA incident (DFW Major Ice Storm), CO landing in BWI from South America (Winter Storm EWR), Express Jet somewhere in Midwest (Bad weather at destination) and recently Virgin at BDL (East Coast Storm that shutdown JFK/NYC area).

Maybe in all of these incidents, airlines cancelling flights and passengers sleeping in terminals or being delayed a day or two would have been a better option.

Yet over this same period of time (10 years), the US airline industry tranported on average over 200 million passengers per year. The statistical percentage of these incidents is certaintly less than nothing. So LT, you might be right but just about the wrong thing!

I think too many people have a misunderstanding of how airlines operate and are too quick to jump on the let's beat up on the airlines band wagon. Do the facts support their positions or is it just an emotional ranting?

Airlines make money by safely transporting you from Point A to B. Nothing is gained by having you rot on an airplane.

Give me specifics, facts and honesty then we can truly have an engaging and enlighting debate. Otherwise, it is just emotions and venting.

I welcome that also if it leads to an education of the real issues.

LT - <i>"half-witted obfuscation"</i>? Come on, where's your sense of proportion? Humor? Sense?

<i>"the airlines had YEARS to solve this problem and did less than nothing."</i> I thought I answered your question in as reasonable a manner as it was posed

DMBTraveler makes a lot of sense. Open your mind, pay attention and you might learn something.

"I guess you"ll have to be clearer on exactly what problem it is that airlines have had years to solve and did less than nothing."

Considering I have only addressed pax being stranded on aircraft (repeated "tarmac horror flights" reference), and considering you started this thread on this very issue, I'm somewhat perplexed as to how you are not understanding this is what we're discussing; nevertheless, I hope this clears things up for you.

"Give me specifics, facts and honesty then we can truly have an engaging and enlighting debate. Otherwise, it is just emotions and venting. "

I thought I was; nevertheless, I'll continue to do so.

"As I previously stated, airlines cancelled many flights ahead of bad weather even before the new legislation passed."

If this was such a successful strategy, then why the "tarmac horror flights?"

"Also, many airlines came up with their own passenger's bill of rights and made this readily available in print form at ticket counters and boarding areas."

Source(s), please? The only one I am aware of is B6, which did this only AFTER the infamous Valentine's Day 2007 incident (which, BTW, you neglect to mention, along with the more recent VX incident at SWF). Carriers, by law, are required to provide Contract of Carriage -- this is NOT a BOR. Please reference any carrier(s) who had BORs prior to the NW incident, or, heck, even the B6 incident . . .

"In the past 10 years, I can think of less that 10 incidents of passengers being stuck on airplanes. To my knowledge none of them were not weather related."

First, again, I've just named two you missed. Second, you miss the forest through the trees. With the NW incident, SEVEN THOUSAND pax were trapped on "tarmac horror flights" (source: Dallas Morning News, 12/30/06). With the B6 incident, 26 flights were "tarmac horror flights" (source: Bloomberg News, 7/21/09). Yes, I've readily acknowledged that these happen rarely; nevertheless, the point is that very often when an "incident" occurs, hundreds, and even thousands of pax are affected.

"Maybe in all of these incidents, airlines cancelling flights and passengers sleeping in terminals or being delayed a day or two would have been a better option."

Maybe??? That's the point!!!!

"Airlines make money by safely transporting you from Point A to B. Nothing is gained by having you rot on an airplane"

But plenty is lost if you're one of those unlucky few that is on one of these planes. And, considering NW alone paid out $7 million in class-action damages relating to their incident, let alone the millions in bad press they incurred, it's a case of penny-wise; pound-foolish. Yet, the airlines still stubbornly resisted making any responsible change on their own until the government had to step in . . .

"Airlines make money by safely transporting you from Point A to B. Nothing is gained by having you rot on an airplane."

Which leads to my point about how they have not only done nothing; they have actually fought against any kind of change. The Air Transport Association is the trade association/lobbying arm of the airline industry. They have spent tens of thousands of dollars in fighting any change, via lobbying dollars (sources: too numerous to mention, but one is the Bloomberg story, previously mentioned). Hence the fact that they did less than nothing.

Again, I actually agree with much of what you say; my point is that it's all about CONTINGENCY PLANNING. Yes, weather happens. But, as we're seeing with BP, when you don't plan for the unlikely, that's when it will probably happen. And, instead of setting up contingency plans, the airlines have not only done nothing, they have actively resisted doing it after they were repeatedly begged to do something.

I'd also like to mention that you have continued to ignore my point about the current EU regulations, which, the last time I checked, has not ground air travel to a halt over there.

I hope this provides you with the facts you have requested. And, for the record, again, I am not wishing for airlines' demise; I'm just rooting for a little corporate responsibility and common sense, which does indeed seem to be in precious little supply in the c-suites at the airlines.

" Open your mind, pay attention and you might learn something."

Right back at you.

LT,
Some facts for you:

In 2006, 36 out of 7,141,922 flights reported had delays of more than five hours after pushing back from the gate. That is just 0.0005 percent.

Delays and cancellations are the enemies of every airline. DOT has estimated the cost of delays to U.S. airline passengers in 2005 at $9.4 billion. At $62 in direct operating costs per minute of flight delay, DOT has estimated that in 2005 delays cost airlines an additional $5.9 billion.

http://www.airlines.org/PublicPolicy...-07Senate.aspx

The point here is “tarmac horror stories” are extremely rare in the big picture and hurt airlines as much as passengers. The problem is most passengers prefer to take the chance of delays than to have their flights canceled.

As I previously mentioned the NWA incident was the ignitor (birth) of the Passenger's Bill of Rights. Since then airlines attempting to prevent needless legislation, produced their own list of passenger's rights.

http://airconsumer.dot.gov/customerservice.htm

Even with the two or three additional incidents you mentioned, I think it is still less that 10 incidents in the past 10 years. Again in 2006 only 36 out of 7,141,922 flights had delays more than 5 hours.

A contributor in the NWA incident was the fact that there were no airport snow removal available. NWA's and The Detroit Airport Authority miscalculated the extent to which the weather would impact airport operation.

Having stranded passenger's was an unfortunate circumstance not an intentional one.

Every flight a major airline operates is done with a contingency plan. If the weather is forecast to be bad at your destination then extra fuel and alternate airports are chosen. Unfortunately, even with contingencies there is limitations.

I have no concern for EU regulations because the EU operates it airlines and airspace differently than in the US. Furthermore, European passengers have other reliable means of public transportation and the volume of air traffic does not compare to US operations. An airline with 600 daily departures can hardly be compared to one with 3400.

The ATA is no different than any other lobbying group. I am sure your profession also has it's lobbyists. Belong to NRA, AARP, AAA, CMA, NAACP, SAG, UAW, YMCA, PGA then you probably have a lobbyist working for you to!

We can all use a little more common sense and responsibility. The airlines are not alone here. If you consider a 0.0005 percent occurrence rate as airlines not been responsible or doing less than nothing then I am afraid we will never be done quibbling.

Tell me exactly what you want the airlines to do on your flight (the 0.0005%) you are delayed 5 hours or more when the weather is bad or there is extensive air traffic control delay.

<i>European passengers have other reliable means of public transportation and the volume of air traffic does not compare to US operations</i>

The current figures given by Eurocontrol for 2009: 9.5mn flights. Which is a *bit* more than the 7.2mn you mentioned for the US (unless you meant only domestic flights).

We might have more alternative means of transportation on certain, mostly domestic corridors, e.g. Madrid-Barcelona, Berlin-Munich, Paris-Lyon, or Paris-Amsterdam. But you pretty much stuck to airlines if you want to travel more than 1000mls within reasonable time.

The majority of delays are caused by airlines - at least in Europe.
https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/htt.../ecoda/portal/

I fly once or twice a week, but I have never heard of people stuck on tarmac for 5 hours, or 3 hrs, or even 2 hours.
Frankly, I see no benefit in keeping pax hostage in a plane for 3 or 5 hours. It's either airline or airport mismanagement.

There is ONE case I remember which made headlines when in 2005 a BA jet could not take-off for hours due to heavy snow and ice on its way from Berlin to London. Take-off time got postponed again and again. The plane had left the gate and was also on the tarmac. After three hours pax started to argue with the crew that they wanted to get out which the pilot declined. Some passengers called the cops, which alarmed the Federal cops who are in charge of airports here. After a little talk on the radio, the Federals could convince the pilot to understand that his behaviour constituted illegal restraint under the jurisdiction on which tarmac his plane was sitting. The prospect of getting his aircraft entered, him arrested, and charged with a federal offense did motivate him, though, to open the doors and let the pax disembark.

If a plane cannot leave because of uncertain weather at the destination, and if the gate position is needed for the next flight, the plane gets pulled to an outfield position, pax remain in terminal building, and get bussed to the plane once there is an affirmed or newly designated take-off time.

What can happen, though, is that you board the aircraft punctually, but then hear that push-back is delayed by half an hour or so because of a new designated take-off time (due to bad weather at arrival airport, for example). Usually this delay gets shorter than declared because of slots that become available sooner than expected.

And yes, I'd much rather have my flight cancelled than sitting on the tarmac for 3 hours. You must not forget that for many pax, esp. business travellers, a flight delayed by 3 hours becomes totally useless since the meeting or appointment cannot be attended anyway.

Cowboy 1968

According to US Air Traffic Controllers website, on average there are 87,000 flights in US Airspace on any given day. Approximately 28,000 are airline flights which alone account for 10 million flights per year.

http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1

Depending on who analyzes and how they analyze the data, it can also be said that airlines cause the majority of the delays in the US. Although the question is, why is the flight late? Is it weather, air traffic control, maintenance, etc?

The study on your reference website points out the difficult with some of this data.

A set of more specific but comprehensive delay codes needs to be developed in
order to separate delay causes more clearly from another.

Weather and air traffic control are the primary reasons for flight delays but ultimately airlines take the blame. There are no benefits to an airline intentionally running delayed flights as it usually cost extra money to do so.

Passengers are never held “hostage” on an airplane unless it is hijacked. Once an airplane leaves the gate you are in a secure environment until you leave the secure area of an airport. Pilots have have a legal responsibility to maintain that secure environment. If local authorities want to over step that boundary then they become responsible for passengers safety not the flight crew or airline.

Your point about passenger boarding is something I offered as a solution in my initial posting. Delays should be taken in terminal not on airplane. Yet, as an experienced traveler you know announced delays can be reduced or lengthen at any time.

This is a gamble that airlines sometimes take and when they are wrong … It becomes a “hostage” situation or “tarmac horror story”.

When they are right, nobody cares because it's not the lead story on your local TV evening news.

Understandably, delays have different effects on different passengers. Therefore, it is important for passengers to be aware of things that could have an effect on their air travel plans. This is why I believe discussing the issues of air travel is important.

Air travel can be a good experience with proper planning and awareness of what all is involved in getting you to your destination safely and in a timely manner.

www.dmbflyingcoach.blogspot.com

I think you are mixing up some legal basics.
A pilot is in charge of his aircraft but he is not beyond the law. Especially when his plane is not airborne yet. The local authorities did not "overstep" any holy boundary but exercised the law. And would have jailed him for illegal restraint. Which is a felony here.
Obviously, the passengers were not dumped on a taxiway, but left the aircraft via gangways at a parking position. How the order to stop the aircraft at a parking position can compromise any "safety" is beyond my imagination.


Airlines, airports, ATC/governments, and passengers have done their share to make air travel one of the most unconvenient ways to get from A to B.
I cannot see one easily to identify scape goat, but I also don't think that one of them is without fault.

Warning: Beginning of a long rant.


Airlines
reduced turnaround times. Gate arrival of incoming planes equals boarding time for the next flight, esp. on domestic and intra-European routes. Delays cannot be compensated. The whole business is calculated on fair weather, no fog, no ice. Ground crews, baggage handling, all just in time. Which does work well quite often, surprisingly. So the plane can run 5 services per day instead of 4. Cheaper tickets for the passengers, hooray.
But it does not take a volcano or the snow storm of a millennium to crush this system.
And it's not just the 15 or 20 delay of the incoming aircraft that is causing a problem. If gate departure is delayed by 20min, there is no guarantee that ATC will be able to give a slot just exactly 20min later. Maybe the next available is 40min later, so another 20min delay gets accumulated. It is a bit silly to say that this is an ATC problem, though. They cannot keep tons of slots vacant just for the late guys.

And another cause of delays, made by airlines themselves: baggage fees. It did not take a degree in rocket science how pax would react to fees of $25 or more for luggage: they take everything on board the aircraft. Let the FAs sort out the mess. They probably do more luggage handling now than check-in staff. Have the lugagge loaded to cargo if it won't fit after all. All this adds up to increase boarding times which means delays.

Airports
are interested in pax numbers going up but more in the sense of potentially more money spenders at restaurants and shops. You will easily find new food courts, new malls at airports, but infrastructure needed to handle the increasing number of passengers or additional security check lanes are not seen as cool enough to invest money in. Or a new runway. Rather attract more airlines, more flights. Great news for the corporations or the communities which run the airport. Let's deal with the problems.. err.. later.

Sorry, but that is as if your 6yo child is inviting friends to his birthday party. 10 kids are fine, 20 maybe, but if he said he invited 100, you'd probably ask him how this number of kids should be accomodated.

ATC.
Well, I don't know really much about it. But I think there had been improvements in the last years, like reducing spacing, and direct routing instead of fixed air corridors. But since you seem to be concerned about safety issues, you know well that critical weather conditions will automatically result in larger spacing intervals. In Europe, the biggest challenge are the still patch-work style ATC areas, so one joint ATC would help.

Aircrafts.
It's not necessarily true that having three big 767 on one route instead of six smaller Canadair jets will make proceedings much faster. Smaller aircrafts require literally no wait for the next plane in line since the small planes produce hardly any wake turbulences which otherwise would increase the waiting time until another plane was able to take-off safely. So the throughput or the capacity of one runway would not greatly improve by using big jets.
Also turnaround is longer. Gate positions get blocked longer, baggage loading/unloading takes longer.

End of rant.

Cowboy1968

Between your ranting and LT quibbling, I feel like I am being taken hostage!

Your posting requires an in-depth discussion and education about the airline industry and air travel. Unfortunately, Fodor's provides a limited forum to do so that is why I recommend you checkout www.dmbflyingcoach.blogspot.com.

I have addressed many of the issues you mention in another Fodor's posting on how to have a pleasant airline experience. I will give a brief response here but will post a more in-depth blog on these issues and situation.

In reference to US Laws (FAA), Passengers in the US cannot be randomly deplaned even if a pilot wanted to. It is a security issue here and requires authorization beyond a pilot's decision or desire to do so. Here the police do not have authority over airline operations.

You originally stated the delay was for heavy snow and ice and the aircraft was on the tarmac. Ever try driving in heavy snow and ice? Now you should be able to imagine the safety issue. The airplane had to be able to be safely taxied or serviced.

I could not disagree with you any stronger that air travel is the most inconvenient way to get from Point A to B. What is a more convenient way for you to travel to Japan or Moscow or Australia?

Airlines change schedule flight times based on historical data between two cities depending on time of the day, month or year. This compensates for historical weather and delays.
While far weather is ideal, the system is designed to operate in all types of weather.

Bad weather just introduces the possibility of delays. You never had a flight arrive on time during bad weather? I have!
ATC slots do not work quite the way you stated. In bad weather most slot times are not assigned until the airplane is actually ready to leave the gate.

Carry-on luggage storage is monitored by Flight Attendants and checked once the on-board space is full. Most airlines require employees to close aircraft door 3-5 minutes prior to schedule departure time. As a result, most flights (80-90%) leave the gate on time and only a few delays are caused by having to check carry-on luggage.

Many airports would like to build new runways but environmental impact studies prevents it. Furthermore, here they must receive FAA approval. Airport concessions meet passenger's need while generating income for cities. A win-win situation.

ATC here operates on outdated equipment. Even with GPS there are few direct routes because of airspace saturation.
Smaller airplanes do add to airspace congestion. If you have 3 instead of 6 departures a day to MCI from LGA then that is 3 less airplanes in the sky. Sure passengers will have to depart at 9am, 12pm and 8pm instead of 9am,11am,1pm,3pm.5pm and 7pm. However, the same amount of seats would still be available. Multiply this by 20 and you have the possibility of significant reduction in delays.

Wake turbulence separation is not an issue for arrival and departure delays. At LGA for example most flights are operated by airplanes that do not create wake turbulence issues.