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.

 

[brokeflyer]

start all 4 engines, then i bet they would offload rather quick.

 

[Flyer1015]

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

You're right. Over 50 people hated it landing into Buffalo one cold winter night. So did one gentlemen on the ground.

 

[SLOTH]

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.

Agreed 100%. It also blows my mind that people seem to think that flight crews are out to get them. Why would we "enjoy" long tarmac waits, hot airplanes, etc.

 

[stall022]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stranded_on_plane

HARTFORD, Conn. – The pilot on a Virgin Atlantic flight that spent several hours on the tarmac after being diverted to Connecticut had asked for permission to let the passengers get off the plane, but a customs official threatened to have them arrested if they did, the airline said Thursday.

Customs officials denied the airline's allegation.

The trans-Atlantic flight's captain was told by a customs official at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks that passengers couldn't get off the plane until more immigration officials arrived, Greg Dawson, an airline spokesman in London, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. It took more than two hours for the officials to arrive, he said.

Storms diverted the London-to-Newark, N.J., flight. Passengers sat on the tarmac in Connecticut for four hours beginning around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday into early Wednesday in rising heat and darkness. Travelers said they were offered water but no food; some fainted.

A federal rule limiting tarmac time to three hours does not apply to international flights.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not receive a call from the pilot, and no one from the agency refused a request to allow passengers off the plane, said Theodore Woo, an agency spokesman in Boston.

Customs officers headed for the airport "as soon as we got the call at 11 p.m.," Woo said. At that point, customs had enough officers to "escort passengers to a safe area," he said.

Airport officials have said there was only one customs official at the airport Tuesday night when the flight arrived in Connecticut.

"That's outrageous. If it's true, it's unacceptable," passenger rights advocate Kate Hanni said of Virgin Atlantic's allegation. She said she expects U.S. Transportation Department officials to listen to any audio recordings made of conversations between pilots and customs officials to verify the allegation.

Transportation officials declined to comment during an investigation.

Last year, the agency's investigation of an overnight stranding of Continental Express passengers on a runway in Rochester, Minn., revealed the flight's captain requested passengers be allowed entrance to the closed airport terminal.

An employee of another airline — the only person still working inside the terminal — refused to open a gate. Audio recordings showed the employee cited the absence of Transportation Security Administration workers in turning down the request.
The Transportation Department should consider including Customs and Border Patrol and the TSA in future regulations related to tarmac strandings, Hanni said.
"They appear to be a roadblock," said Hanni, founder of Flyersrights.org. "Often airlines tell us customs or TSA refused to allow passengers off planes."
Two years ago, the TSA told a task force on tarmac strandings that the agency wouldn't object to passengers being deplaned if they could be contained in a secure room inside the airport, Hanni said.

The airport called for customs inspectors around 11 p.m. when it learned the Virgin flight was canceled, said John Wallace, a Bradley spokesman. Passengers were allowed off the plane about an hour and 15 minutes later, when customs officials arrived, he said.

Bradley's only regular international passenger flights are to Canada, and it does not house many customs agents, Wallace said.

Connecticut Transportation Commissioner Joseph F. Marie disputed a comment Wednesday by a Virgin spokeswoman in London that Bradley, which is operated by his agency, "isn't used to dealing with international flights."

Bradley has handled 47 diversions of international flights in the last 12 months "without incident until this one," Marie said.

Virgin Atlantic said in an e-mail that it will not comment until it gathers information about the incident.

Marie said he will contact Virgin, the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs to investigate.

 

[igneousy2]

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

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

If VUSA didn't have a lifeline to Branson 8.2 million could bankrupt them....anyway...don't kill the dream.

 

[igneousy2]

Oops...just realized that it was Virgin ATLANTIC and not Virgin AMERICA. The rules exempt international carriers from the rules anyway...all the talk in the media about fines made me think they were talking about Virgin America.