NICE Job Continental Airlines

[Flopgut]

I think I actually see where you're comming from Flop, but it then becomes a chicken and egg situation. The pax treat pilots like bus drivers so the pilots act like bus drivers so the pax treat them like bus drivers so the pax...

If I was a pax on that express flight I would think the airline is worse than GreyHound and the pilots inept. I don't know how to reverse the trend. But I imagine that stopping pulling rabbits out of hats will have less of a chance impressing them than continueing to.

As to this event, do you think the Captain considered all this when she decided to let 'em sit? Or is her being in that position a result of pax spending hours to save $7 and running the profession into the ditch?

Like I said, I don't know what the fix is but I understand being fustrated with the situation.

Yes, that's where I was coming from. You are correct. I do not have the best outlook on things at this point and I'm not sure what to do about it. I'm going to end up mouthing off to a customer and have to get chewed out by a CP or something. And I will also agree completely that this was not in the captain's realm of consideration on this flight. This was not a good divert outcome.

 

[waka]

Originally Posted by waka
In this case, reality and what you "don't believe" are completely different things. Yes, an airliner can just show up at an FBO. There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't. A quick call on the radio would have easily solved the problem.

Can you do it safely? No. Not safe enough. And if you do, where do they go then? You let them out of the plane in that scenario and you'll have them scattered all over the ramp. You'll have one walk into a moving prop, get run over by a tug, or walk out onto the runway. Bad will go to worse real quick. I realize that Expressjet operates these same type aircraft in a charter scenario and they understand FBOs, but this was different. There is no telling what these customers would have done. The instant their feet hit the concrete the camera phones will be on and in the crew's faces, the screaming will start, some a$$hole will try to open the cargo, another will put their face into a static wick, they'd be calling CNN, etc, etc. Hey, maybe the customers would have been perfectly mannered and maybe they park at FBOs in their Barons ten times a month, but you can't give customers the benefit of the doubt. Not these days. They haven't earned it.

You sure have a pessimistic and wild imagination of the worst case scenario. Frankly, it is a ridiculous and very stupid prediction. You let the pax out and they go into the FBO. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

No, there is nothing dangerous about offloading 121 pax at an FBO.

 

[airplane wizard]

Zonker: The airplane diverted and the customers had to sit on the plane for several hours and it was NOT the airline or the crew's fault. .

Then who's fault was it?? How would you like to be sitting there for 6hrs while the employees have their thumbs up their asses? Oh yea that;s right you don't get like $20 million/yr for working one day a month!! Makes it all ok then!!

 

[glasspilot]

Will you guys settle down? Flopgut is having a "moment" where he is re-evaluating everything he holds near and dear. Relax and he'll make a comment to bring his last post full circle to agreeing that the Cal Express Captain was ridiculous in her handling of the situation at Rochester.

 

[Flopgut]

Here's your answer Airplane Wizard:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said an investigation by his department found that u 22816 for Continental Airlines, wasn't at fault in the tarmac stranding.

Is 6-7 hours really that long? IMHO, no, it is not. 8+ would have been too long. If I couldn't use the FBO, I would evacuate the airplane at 8+. I think the customers should be a bit more durable and patient.

Would it have been better to flown through the wx? Would it have been better to have a turbulence related injury and not had the long wait?

 

[CaptJax]

Fliers On Delayed Planes Get More Support

Fliers on delayed planes get more support

By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Airlines are losing another ally in their fight to stop Congress from passing a law that would allow passengers to get off planes delayed at least three hours on airport tarmacs.

The Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents about 300 corporate travel departments, is coming out today in support of such a law after having opposed congressional action.

The coalition's shift comes after it surveyed 649 corporate travel departments, travel agents and business travelers and found that more than 90% of travel departments — and about 80% of travel agents and business travelers — say passengers should have the option to get off flights delayed three hours or longer.

It also follows a similar shift in positions by two other business travel groups — the National Business Travel Association and the American Society of Travel Agents. And it comes as Congress is poised this fall to vote on so-called passenger rights legislation that would force the airlines to give passengers stuck on flights options.

The survey results "reveal a striking change in thinking in the mainstream business community about the need for congressional intervention," says Kevin Mitchell, the coalition's chairman.

"Some of the largest corporations on the planet, for whom government involvement in free markets is anathema, overwhelmingly have concluded that legislation is the best choice after 10 years of shattered promises of self-policing by airlines," he says.

Airlines don't want legislation

Although rare, more than 200,000 domestic passengers have been stuck on more than 3,000 planes for three hours or more waiting to take off or taxi to a gate since January 2007, a USA TODAY analysis of U.S. Transportation Department data has found.

In June, 278 flights waited on the tarmac for at least three hours, the most recent numbers from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics show.

The issue has attracted greater attention after an incident last month in which 51 passengers were stuck overnight on a delayed Continental Express flight at the Rochester, Minn., airport. The incident, in which passengers complained of a smelly toilet and not having food or drink, also has drawn greater attention to the legislation.

The House and Senate must decide on final wording of any passenger-rights provisions that now are in a bill to reauthorize and fund the Federal Aviation Administration.

A Senate committee voted in July to require airlines to let people off planes delayed for more than three hours. The House earlier had passed a less specific version that requires each airline to submit to the Department of Transportation a plan to let passengers off.

The Air Transport Association, which represents major U.S. airlines, says long delays "are unacceptable," and it understands why they frustrate passengers. But, the group says, it opposes legislation that would force airlines to return planes to terminals after a set time to let off passengers.

Airlines have established "contingency plans" to deal with long tarmac delays and can handle the problems themselves without government intervention, says David Castelveter, the group's vice president.

"We continue to believe that a hard-and-fast mandatory rule for deplaning passengers will have substantial unintended consequences, leading to even more inconvenience for passengers and, ultimately, more flight cancellations," Castelveter says.

Airlines have spent a lot of money to improve service, he says, "including the use of new technology, the purchase of the most modern aircraft and facility improvement projects."

But passenger-rights groups — and now business groups — are saying they cannot count on the airlines to solve the delays, and Congress must step in and force the airlines to let passengers off planes.

Congress must set 'clear standard'

Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org says three should be the maximum number of hours before a passenger is allowed off a plane, but many members of her group wonder if the limit should be one or two hours.

"Why in the USA do we even have to ask for a three-hour limit on the ground in a sealed, hot, sweaty metal tube?" she asks. "We thought this country was founded on freedom — freedom to move, freedom to breathe, freedom to eat and drink and have hygienic toilet facilities."

The Business Travel Coalition, which for years has testified at congressional hearings in support of airlines remedying the tarmac-delay problem on their own, now agrees with FlyersRights.org. The two groups have scheduled a Sept. 22 conference in Washington to discuss the issue.

About 80% of the respondents to the coalition's survey, many of whom handle travel for Fortune 500 firms, said the airlines haven't made a compelling case against the legislation.

It was the Aug. 7 delay in Rochester, in which the passengers were held on the Continental Express jet for 5½ hours, that turned the National Business Travel Association around. The association, which represents about 4,200 corporate travel departments and suppliers, had previously taken the position that the airlines should solve the problem.

In July, the American Society of Travel Agents reversed course and urged Congress to act "in the face of continuing delays and the evident lack of concrete efforts on the part of airlines to create a meaningful solution."

Paul Ruden, the society's senior vice president, was on a Transportation Department task force last year that recommended airlines establish time limits at each airport for letting passengers off planes.

But that hasn't worked, he says, and Congress now needs to set "a clear standard for the airlines to follow."

 

[Ex737Driver]

"Folks, we are currently number four for departure and would expect to be airborne in the next 10 minutes. But since the passenger bill of rights was passed, that will exceed our time on the ground by 5 minutes and therefore will be returning to any gate we can find availbale at the terminal. Once we add some gas and allow you the opportunity to deplane, walk around the terminal in a stupor, take a squirt, get some food and then replane, we would expect to have you airborne sometime in the next 2 hours. Thanks for your patience."

 

[superrav]

not sure how old this thread is but after the truth came out of hope all of you that spoke to soon can next time be a little more mature and maybe not post retarted statements.

Flopgut, I agree with you 100%

 

[Mach92]

"Folks, we are currently number four for departure and would expect to be airborne in the next 10 minutes. But since the passenger bill of rights was passed, that will exceed our time on the ground by 5 minutes and therefore will be returning to any gate we can find availbale at the terminal. Once we add some gas and allow you the opportunity to deplane, walk around the terminal in a stupor, take a squirt, get some food and then replane, we would expect to have you airborne sometime in the next 2 hours. Thanks for your patience."

Perfect! Deal with it

 

[CaptJax]

Airlines Fined For Stranding PAXs On Jet

Airlines fined for stranding passengers on jet

Associated Press

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

(11-25) 04:00 PST Washington --

The government is imposing fines for the first time against airlines for stranding passengers on an airport tarmac, the Transportation Department said Tuesday.

The department said it levied $175,000 in fines against three airlines for stranding 47 passengers overnight in a plane at Rochester, Minn., on Aug. 8.

Continental Express Flight 2816 was en route from Houston to Minneapolis when thunderstorms forced it to land at Rochester at 12:30 a.m.

The airport was closed and Mesaba Airlines employees refused to open the terminal for the stranded passengers.

Continental Airlines and its regional airline partner ExpressJet, which operated the flight for Continental, were each fined $50,000. Mesaba was fined $75,000.