Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NICE Job Continental Airlines

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
What we have too many of in aviation right now is two kinds of people: The kind that think aviation would be better if it weren't for all the airplanes (for example the kind of people running this airport), and the second is the kind of people who will second guess anything a flight crew/airline does. It's really dispicable.

When you talk about the size of the airplane and responsibility make sure you're seeing the arguement both ways. What if this were a heavy airplane with 300+ customers? You keep them on the plane or you're going to hurt a lot of people.

This Expressjet Captain is ready to fly big planes IMHO. Astro and Glasspilot, I'd worry about you two.
 
Does IMHO stand for "I Might Have nOidea"?

She's ready for the "big iron" you say? Based on this stellar example of superior Captainship? Great.

She could have ordered a bee keeper to deliver a swarm during the overnight and you'd criticize me for suggesting that might have been a bad idea. "She's the Captain! There are two types...those that respect the Captain and those that aren't ready for big planes...IMHO"

whatever...I've flown little CRJ's and 727's and I've never forced my pax spend the night on board. Guess I'm not cut from the right cloth. Oh well.
 
Crew, customers and aircraft were safe and secure. Could things have gone better? Yep! But they could have also gone worse.

Have you ever supervised pilots? Just curious.
 
Glasspilot: I stand by my comments on de-reg, and that I don't believe an airliner can just show up at an FBO. You and I know your asking for an injury and compromising safety and as uncomfortable as those customers were, they weren't in harms way.

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.
 
Flopgut said:
"When you talk about the size of the airplane and responsibility make sure you're seeing the arguement both ways. What if this were a heavy airplane with 300+ customers? You keep them on the plane or you're going to hurt a lot of people."

"This Expressjet Captain is ready to fly big planes IMHO. Astro and Glasspilot, I'd worry about you two."


Wow Flopgut...after watching folks board and deplane using an airstairs many times over the last couple of decades on the 727, L1011, 737, 757/767...as well as many smaller aircraft I have yet to see anyone injured on an airstair.

Flopgut tell us how we are going to hurt a lot of people by deplaning them on an airstair?

...and why should we see the arguement both ways as you say? This wasn't a 300+ airliner, so why even bring that up. Had it been a 747 and there was no airstair available then sure...keep the folks onboard...you'd certainly NOT want to blow the slides...is that what you were thinking? In that case keep the folks onboard. IN THIS CASE there was an airstair available...it would have been safe to use it. Therefore common sense would dictate you deplane the aircraft not JUST SIT THERE FOR SEVEN HOURS, without food, without water!

How you defend the Captain's decision to just sit there for seven hours blows me away!!! Use some common sense here, holy cow!

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE A PASSENGER BILL OF RIGHTS???? IF we act like Flopgut and Phrog4ever and that's what we'll have. Don't you think we have enough government regulation already???

Astro
 
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.
 
Flopgut said:
"When you talk about the size of the airplane and responsibility make sure you're seeing the arguement both ways. What if this were a heavy airplane with 300+ customers? You keep them on the plane or you're going to hurt a lot of people."

"This Expressjet Captain is ready to fly big planes IMHO. Astro and Glasspilot, I'd worry about you two."


Wow Flopgut...after watching folks board and deplane using an airstairs many times over the last couple of decades on the 727, L1011, 737, 757/767...as well as many smaller aircraft I have yet to see anyone injured on an airstair.

Flopgut tell us how we are going to hurt a lot of people by deplaning them on an airstair?

...and why should we see the arguement both ways as you say? This wasn't a 300+ airliner, so why even bring that up. Had it been a 747 and there was no airstair available then sure...keep the folks onboard...you'd certainly NOT want to blow the slides...is that what you were thinking? In that case keep the folks onboard. IN THIS CASE there was an airstair available...it would have been safe to use it. Therefore common sense would dictate you deplane the aircraft not JUST SIT THERE FOR SEVEN HOURS, without food, without water!

How you defend the Captain's decision to just sit there for seven hours blows me away!!! Use some common sense here, holy cow!

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE A PASSENGER BILL OF RIGHTS???? IF we act like Flopgut and Phrog4ever and that's what we'll have. Don't you think we have enough government regulation already???

Astro

The larger truth here is that safety prevailed. In irregular ops customers ought to be able to stand being a little uncomfortable. Tough decision to divert to this airport and certainly a tough decision to keep them on board. There would be plenty of harsh critique going on no matter what they did. But there was no damage and no injuries. This issue got full, complete and immediate attention right away from the very highest authorities and they pegged the blame on someone other than the operator and the crew. You should not want to miss an opportunity to applaud that. That's a huge plus for all of us that do this and, in fact a credit to airlines in a possible passenger bill of rights effort. We [airlines] more often than not are blamed for EVERYTHING and in this case customers learn there are more parties in the equation than just the airline and the crew.
 
Wow Flopgut...after watching folks board and deplane using an airstairs many times over the last couple of decades on the 727, L1011, 737, 757/767...as well as many smaller aircraft I have yet to see anyone injured on an airstair.

Flopgut tell us how we are going to hurt a lot of people by deplaning them on an airstair?


Astro

I've seen a lot of injuries. Lot's of unsafe scenarios.

One broken bone in this goatrope and the whole thing would have been the airline/captain's fault in a completely new way. There would be no emphasis on learning why the airport wasn't functioning or how to prevent this from happening again. There would instead be 40+ lawsuits, injuries more than likely, and a crew with ruined futures. Is that what you would have preferred to see here? Is that really why you're upset? You wanted to see that sort of thing? I hope not.
 
I've seen a lot of injuries. Lot's of unsafe scenarios.

One broken bone in this goatrope and the whole thing would have been the airline/captain's fault in a completely new way. There would be no emphasis on learning why the airport wasn't functioning or how to prevent this from happening again. There would instead be 40+ lawsuits, injuries more than likely, and a crew with ruined futures. Is that what you would have preferred to see here? Is that really why you're upset? You wanted to see that sort of thing? I hope not.

It could have been done very easily and safely. XJT uses stairs and hardstands all the time in IAH with no problem at all, been doing that for years. All that was required was some coordination with the FBO folks and the three crew members, easy.
You are coming across as a drama queen, why would there be 40 law suits and broken bones, people walking into props? FBO personal are used to ramp safety, it's their job. For the record, I have unloaded 50 PAX at an FBO in the past at an off line airport and guess what, no injuries or law suits, just folks happy to be off the airplane.
 
It could have been done very easily and safely. XJT uses stairs and hardstands all the time in IAH with no problem at all, been doing that for years. All that was required was some coordination with the FBO folks and the three crew members, easy.
You are coming across as a drama queen, why would there be 40 law suits and broken bones, people walking into props? FBO personal are used to ramp safety, it's their job. For the record, I have unloaded 50 PAX at an FBO in the past at an off line airport and guess what, no injuries or law suits, just folks happy to be off the airplane.

Well that's great that it worked out for you, and I realize Expressjet charter uses FBOs and that many times things go normal. So why didn't they do that this time? I'm inclined to side with the crew's decisions. Must have been some lack of willingness on the part of the FBO.

Most importantly guys, oversight has firmly laid blame with someone other than the airline and the crew!! That's a good thing for all of us.
 
Another Empty Kitchen!

The chick should have taken control of the situation. Grow a pair of balls and be creative. I think any experienced pilot would have just gone back to the basics and taxi to the FBO. They have better crew lounges anyway. Plus free popcorn. That's right! For all of us cheap pilots out there...free popcorn and probably a movie or two also. Hopefully they fire the chick and open up a spot for a more deserving guy. That's why upgrading based solely on seniority is horse sh!t
 
Passengers don't know this and they don't care. As far as they are concerned it is CAL.

Larry and crew wrecked that airline. I only see negative CAL stories on the news anymore. What a shame.

Fortunately for us that doesn't really matter anymore. Afterall, passengers these days have no loyalty whatsoever. A couple of years back, I might have been concerned for all these negative stories. These days it just doesn't matter. We're now in a commodity business.

If pax can save $7 they'll spend 4 hrs on the internet looking for the cheapest ticket.
 
Well that's great that it worked out for you, and I realize Expressjet charter uses FBOs and that many times things go normal. So why didn't they do that this time? I'm inclined to side with the crew's decisions. Must have been some lack of willingness on the part of the FBO.

Most importantly guys, oversight has firmly laid blame with someone other than the airline and the crew!! That's a good thing for all of us.

Flopgut I agree with you 100 percent on the age issue but on this one you've lost it.

You have to set your own personal standards and be a leader at some point. Allowing yourself, others, young children, etc. to sit in that environment is not acceptable. Period!

We have a great privilege as captains to make things right when they've gone wrong. We need to use that authority and make people understand why we deserve to be paid and paid handsomely!
 
Last edited:
Flopgut said, "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. I've seen a lot of injuries. Lot's of unsafe scenarios. One broken bone in this goatrope and the whole thing would have been the airline/captain's fault in a completely new way."

Flopgut you are ridiculous...Just as many things could go wrong if you keep pax prisoner in a jet all night long without food or water. Heart attacks have been caused by a lot less...

Frankly, you sound like you are afraid of your own shadow.

Bottom line, once they got to Rochester it was the Captain's fault they spent the night in the airplane. Regardless of what the station manager did those folks should have been off the aircraft. Why they were in Rochester to begin with is a whole other argument.
 
Zonker: I know I'm going out on a bit of a limb supporting this as I am. Bottom line is nobody got hurt and the plane didn't get bent. And the big plus for me is that the blame has been shifted from the flight crew/airline.

As far as being a captain, yes this one could have done better. However, I think your garden variety US airline customer could back off a little bit and deal with a bit of discomfort in these instances. If they want flexibility in their schedules and perks like using FBOs, they can pay for them! Get their f-ing wallets out and charter the airplane. We don't have to show them why we used to get paid well, why we still should be, and want to be paid in the future well. We've done too much of that. US customers have been completely spoiled and grown to expect something lavish, immediate, and cheap. F-em! This was/is a perfect example of a time to reset customer expectations. 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. They have to blame somebody else. I'm sure every one of these customers is stunned to find out they can't blame the airline. It's a good thing.

One of my favorite analogies: If you're an actor, when you get a shot at a movie role you take it because that's where the money is. But if you're a real thespian, you always want to get back on a stage. That's where you get an immediate audience reaction. If you do well, you know it. I say that to say this: I spent a lot of years in charter where I saw a lot of opportunities to turn a bad customer issue into a good one. I grew to thrive on it. The airline paid more money so I left, and it was difficult to throttle back those instincts. I'm not confused about customer service, and I know there are many things this crew could of done. But I'm tired of these mouthbreathing, dirtballs we fly around that expect a rabbitt pulled out of a hat everytime something comes up.

Nobody got hurt. Somebody else got blamed. Let's run with that.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
Last edited:
"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."
 
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%
 
"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
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom