Passengers Kept on Plane for More Than 4 Hours in Connecticut

[DieselDragRacer]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/23/report-passengers-kept-jet-hours-conn/

Passengers say they were kept on the plane for more than four hours with sporadic power and no air conditioning.


Virgin has apologized for inconveniences caused by the delay and thanked passengers for their patience.


Doy was checking into reports of mechanical issues and the jet not having the air conditioner running while it was stalled.

The three-hour limit on tarmac strandings that went into effect in April doesn't apply to foreign carriers or international flights by U.S. carriers, although U.S. carriers are required to have contingency plans for returning passengers waiting for prolonged periods on planes to airport terminals.

 

[ultrarunner]

APU deferred? Why not run an engine so you cab turn on a pack? I'm still amazed at these stories. It's all about keeping your customers happy! At some poophole domestic ops, ok....but this was Richards mainline outfit!

 

[Captain Morgan]

Aside from the customers, keep the crew happy. It always astonishes me the lengths people go to, to save the company money/fuel. It's one thing to try and make good decisions but to sweat and fester in the heat for 50-100 lbs of fuel is another thing. When I'm at work I want to be as comfortable as I can be. We deal with BS through out our days on the road. The last thing we need to worry about is our comfort. Plus, keep the crew happy, keep the customer happy.

 

[Nindiri]

Virgin was checking
into reports of mechanical issues and the jet not having the air conditioner running while it was stalled.

Don't you just hate it when you're riding in the back of one of these airliners and the crew stalls it.

 

[igneousy2]

Now we'll see if the DOT will follow the law and bankrupt an airline because of one incident.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Now we'll see if the DOT will follow the law and bankrupt an airline because of one incident.

~300 PAX * $27,500 = $8,250,000. That's the approximate maximum.

Boo hoo. That's one less ad campaign. Not bankruptcy.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Aside from the customers, keep the crew happy. It always astonishes me the lengths people go to, to save the company money/fuel. It's one thing to try and make good decisions but to sweat and fester in the heat for 50-100 lbs of fuel is another thing. When I'm at work I want to be as comfortable as I can be. We deal with BS through out our days on the road. The last thing we need to worry about is our comfort. Plus, keep the crew happy, keep the customer happy.

I couldn't agree more.

If the Company doesn't care enough, or is attentive enough to hook-up preconditioned air at the gate on a hot day for their fuel savings, then I have no qualms about lighting the APU. Comfort is king, especially for the crew. If you want make people angry and irritable, get them good and hot sitting on the ramp.

I'm curious to find out why the crew didn't run an engine on the ground.

 

[poppi]

I would bet they shut the engines down and found out the did not have a huffer cart to start the engine

 

[N1atEcon]

Now we'll see if the DOT will follow the law and bankrupt an airline because of one incident.

I believe the legislation only applied to US carriers or domestic flights. I will have to look it up.


LaHood this month proposed extending to foreign carriers the requirement for contingency plans in the event of a tarmac stranding. The proposal included a request for comment from airlines and the public on whether the Transportation Department should also extend a firm three-hour limit to international flights by U.S. and foreign carriers.

 

[StopNTSing]

I would bet they shut the engines down and found out the did not have a huffer cart to start the engine

If it's an airport that we serve (KBDL=yes), there will be a huffer on the ramp. Now whether it is a Fifi-compatible huffer....that I don't know.