Three Hour Rule for Airlines
This is a regulation destined to suffer from the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Stinky toilets, crying babies, airless cabins - the Obama administration said Monday passengers don’t have to take it any more. It ordered airlines to let people get off planes delayed on the ground after three hours.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the three-hour limit and other new regulations are meant to send an unequivocal message to airlines not to hold passengers hostage on stuck planes. Coming on the eve of the busy holiday travel season, the announcement was hailed by consumer advocates as “a Christmas miracle.”
The airline industry said it will comply with the regulations - which go into effect in 120 days - but predicted the result will be more canceled flights, more inconvenience for passengers.
As I’ve mentioned before, I am a frequent airline patron and have some comment on this. In all of the flights I’ve ever taken, I’ve been stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours a couple of times. It sucked. It was hot, stinky, and a generally miserable experience. I don’t recommend it for anyone. But the very few times I have endured it, it would be infinitely better than the plane heading back to the gate and canceling - forcing me to find another flight hours or days later. Think this through a bit…
- a plane has been on the runway for 2.5 hours in line waiting for take off. Instead of waiting another 35 minutes, it heads back to the gate and cancels the flight.
- Delays throughout the airport are several hours long. The airlines don’t want to risk anyone staying out there too long, so they just cancel the flights (hint: your ticket doesn’t allow for any refunds if the cancellation is due to weather).
The crap goes on and on.
This is a perfect example of government reacting to a rare - if extremely crappy - situation in a way that will result if far more slightly less crappy situations.
Your government at work, folks.
I fly often and completely agree.
The road to hell…Posted by Charlie Hillman on December 21, 2009 at 2315 hrs
So where would you draw the line? 4 hours? 8?
Not so much as altering this legislation, but for you travellers there is some point at where the flight being cancelled is a better option that sitting one more minute. What is that point?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0712 hrs
Its a tough call Rick. But there is a difference between being in a really long line for take-off and being stuck on the tarmac on a ground hold.
The problem is that these planes are no longer equipped to have people on board for that long of a time. Not enough food or beverages, not enough toilet capacity. At some point human decency really does need to kick in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0804 hrs
It probably depends on the purpose for your trip, and with whom you are traveling.
If you’re just a garden variety road warrior, like Owen or Charlie, you could probably pretty much sit there forever. Whip out a laptop, get some work done, catch some shut-eye—what does it matter?
But if you’re traveling with a baby, or young children, it’s a whole different ball of wax. With the restrictions about how much baggage you can bring on an airplane now, it’s not as if you could even pack with the notion that you might be forcibly imprisoned on the plane for 16 hours or more. There comes to be a limit to how much entertaining and cajoling you can do with a young child (or especially an infant) in a confined space like that before things just descend into chaos.
For the most part, the demographics on any given airliner are a mixed bag—students, pleasure travelers, business travelers. At the end of the day, you can’t falsely imprison people for the better part of a day because failing to do so might inconvenience a few road warriors on the plane. To quote neomom, there comes to be a point of human decency where you just have to admit that this plane ain’t takin’ off, and let the passengers de-plane. I don’t know if three hours is the right number. But there has to be some reasonable limit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1353 hrs
Here’s a novel idea…if you are unstatisfied with that airline and the way it treats you…don’t fly with them again. Just as if you don’t like a restaurant because they offer smoking find another place that doesn’t it.
Why do we have to have goverment step in and make decisions for grow ups who can make decisions for themselves?
Maybe we should impose the same penalty if our mail is an hour late. How about waiting for an hour at the DMV?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1404 hrs
No one is saying that there isn’t a point where it makes more sense to deplane than to continue to sit on the tarmac. The point is, that it is a call that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, and get government the H-E-double global warming graphs out of the way so that decision can be made. This is in reaction to the episode at Rochester, Mn. Why did they keep the people on the plane at Rochester? Not out of some perverse joy in seeing them sit uncomfortably on a regional commuter jet, but because the FAA regs said that they couldn’t let the passengers into the terminal without the proper personnel. Without the government interference it would have been a non-issue. So what do we do to solve it? Add another regulation that in all likelihood will create larger problems than the one it solves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1409 hrs
elovrich - this comes not from just the Rochester incident. This started a few years ago, I believe, from an incident in Detroit where passengers were made to sit on the tarmac for upwards of 10 hours. There were hungry babies that ran out of carry-on diapers and diabetics that needed food and beverages, not to mention overflowing toilets. When the passengers got increasingly restless and asked to go to the terminal, they were threatened with arrest. There have been more cases since then.
Kelly - trust me, I despise over-reaching regulation. In this case, there are a limited number of airlines (fewer every day it seems) and a limited number you can choose from at your nearest airport. I can pick from 2 airlines that service our little neck of the woods. Congress has been firing this warning shot for a few years, ever since that Detroit debacle. The airlines/airports didn’t do anything to fix it.
I don’t know if 3 hours is the right amount of time. Now they will be forced to figure it out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1433 hrs
How about waiting for an hour at the DMV?
Just as if you don’t like a restaurant because they offer smoking find another place that doesn’t it.
Your analogies fail there. If the service at a restaurant is intolerable, you can get up and leave. At any time. If the line at the DMV is too long, you are also free to go. They don’t shut the doors behind you as you come in and tell you that you must now stay until such time as they deem fit to let you leave.
But once you get on the plane and they seal up the door, you’re their prisoner until they’re darned good and ready to let you out. No matter how poor the service. Even if the toilets don’t work. The penalty for attempting to leave is a federal charge that effectively labels you a terrorist for life.
Under those circumstances, it is absolutely not unreasonable for there to be some kind of standard for when they must open the doors and let you leave. And otherwise reasonable people do not become commies just for thinking so.
In thPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1452 hrs
So explain to me how this will work. You are sitting in line on the plane waiting to take off. 1 plane in front of you. Sorry to late its been 3 hrs and at the risk of $25000/passenger the plane turns around and goes back to the gate. Couple of problems here, How does the plane get back to the gate does it go in the oppisite direction of the planes in line?
What gate does it go to? I would assume most are full? Do you have to be off the plane in 3 hrs or just working on it? Now that your back in the airport what happens? Do you get off and 15 minutes latter get back on the same plane? or do you just cancel your trip? If the line to take off is long there is a good chance the next plane you get on will be waiting also. And why does the $25000 fine go to the goverment instead of the passengers?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1722 hrs
Government is NOT the solution to our problems… government IS the problem. True the, truer now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 2153 hrs
Your analogies fail there. If the service at a restaurant is intolerable, you can get up and leave. At any time. If the line at the DMV is too long, you are also free to go. They don’t shut the doors behind you as you come in and tell you that you must now stay until such time as they deem fit to let you leave.
-Steve
It is not a fail. When you do get off the plane you never use that airline again. You call your travel agent, airline and airport and get your money back. You raise hell and then you never use that airline again until it improves. You are forced to use the DMV there is no other place to get a license or a renewal.
If you have to take a connecting flight to avoid it so be it, but leave government out of it.
If the plane would back to the gate the next book flight, I believe would then board thus leaving you at the airport. Remember there are fewer gates than planes when things get backed. What about your luggage, do you want to leave that on the plane so when some hacked off over worked baggage handler “accidentally” loses your luggae because you wanted to get off?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1343 hrs
I watch a show on cable once in a while called Air Emergency. I wish I could remember what major crash they were investigating. I do remember that all on board were killed.
What the investigators found out was the main reason for the crash was there was a substantial delay on the tarmac. While they were delayed for hours, the plane was full with people and fuel. As they sat the captain had the air on (which most air carriers do in holding) to help keep the passengers comfortable. This uses fuel.
When the plane was at the gate getting ready to board, the ground personel followed FAA regs when refueling. It was not going to be a long flight so they did not fil the center fuel tank with much. The other tanks were filled. Airlines only fill enough fuel for the distance of the trip and a little over in case they are put in a holding pattern in the air at their destination airport.
Needless to say the plane took off and later crashed and killed everyone. It was discovered that the cause was because the were on hold on the tarmac, the air conditioning was on, and the center fuel tank not filled. The little bit of fuel that was in that tank was sloshing around and there became a build up of gases and some wires or something caused spark which caused the explosion. FAA investigators stated that it would not have happened had the tank been full, and the plane had not sat for hours on the tarmac waiting for take off with the air on using fuel. Even though even after sitting for hours they did have enough fuel to arrive at the destination. Howevr, because of the ground delay the little fuel that was in the center tank got even lower because of the delay.
The FAA since has changed it’s regs for the fueling and also if I remember enforced some kind of redesign of that center tank and electrical system in all planes of it’s kind.
So I guess taking all that has been said here and the history of disasters and fatalities caused in some part by ground delays limiting time not only serves the passengers comfort but in some cases preserves life and the interest of safety. I understand all the pros and cons on each side but I hate to say it passenger comfort may need to be sacrificed for the purpose of safety. Yes, it would be a pain in the butt to have to deplane and try to find a new flight and all that but I would rather have to do that then be in a plane that may explode midair.
I have had my fair share of flying when I lived in AZ and So Cali and sat or hours sometimes on the tarmac. I was also on a flight into Minn where I was to change planes to get to Milwaukee. There was a huge snow storm in Minn. I like to listen to the air traffic control on the planes headsets. I heard that the planes that were in holding, as soon as they got those planes down they were shutting down the airport to any other planes. We got cleared to final approach and land. Which we did though lots of turbulance, ice, and snow. We got down, back wheels and nose completely down and before we knew what was going on an air traffic controller was telling the pilot to abort and pull up quickly. There was a plane on the runway that had been in holding for take off that was still there because the line was so long. It was finally moving but had to cross the runway we were arriving on. So our plane shot back off the runway so quickly and a very high angle up it felt like we were on the shuttle. We recircled and put back into the back of the holding pattern. While there we lost an engine and those of us that were listening to the air traffic controllers via planes audio system and headphones we heard our pilot ask for priority landing because we were running low on fuel. We can from San Diego, touch down and took off again. We were delayd a bit on take of from SD and then off course twice in the air over Minn. So if we had crashed part of the reason could have been atributed to the delays on both ends and running low on fuel. Needless to ay we did land safely of course, but when I get in the terminal I called home to tell them to forget going to airport to pick me up in Milwaukee because I was a walkin’. No way was I getting on another plane. Unfortunatly my father had already left home Mitchell Field so I had no choice. I had a fear of flying before but after that it got worse.
So is 3 hours reasonable? I don’t know I guess it depends on the amount of fuel on board, passenger comfort, and many other factors. Safety should always be first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1356 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:15 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).