The way I heard it reported (which I see is wrong after doing some checking) is that there was a three hour limit if there was no access to working toliets and water. That seemed reasonable to me. Further research indicates that is not so, it is a 3 hour limit - unless there is a safety or security issue - or the airport indicates that it would disrupt operations there - hmmm...that sounds like an easy out.

In the scenario above, if your plane has been waiting 3 hours on the tarmac only to get to fifth - well the planes in front of you probably did too, so they would probably have returned to the gate already.

In all my tarmac waits, it seems like we could have waited just as well at the gate. I mean, when the pilot comes on with "sorry folks, we are going to have a 90 minute delay while we wait for a scheduled slot at our destination" I see no reason the plane could not go back to the gate.

Before you say anything about this measure, you should learn about flight scheduling.

It's not the airline or the pilot that determines when takeoff happens!

Chances are, Patrick Smith is way ahead of you on this.

One more thing: do you know what happens when schedule pressure is added to an activity where safety is important?

Safety goes away, in direct proportion to the pressure. Thanks again, Mr. President. Assuming you actually made this fine scheme happen (which I doubt since you didn't write your own book), you're making "strategery" sound better with every step you take.

Heh - and the airline pays for the inability of air traffic control to let them fly.

G E N I U S !

Thanks, Raddy, for posting that Patrick Smith link, and pointing that out. An excerpt:

First, deplaning even one passenger requires a return to the gate, the possible offloading of luggage, and the very real danger of a flight missing its departure slot, subjecting those who remain to a substantially longer wait. It's never fun, but there are times when sitting on a plane for three and a half hours is the better alternative.

But more important, let me ask you this: Is the call center at my bank obligated under federal law to answer its phones in a certain amount of time? When UPS delivers a package late, is it beholden by an act of Congress to make amends? And so on. I'm not one of those people who believe the free market should be left to its own Darwinian devices every time, but it sets a bad precedent, and it's a very slippery slope, once we start legislating what is effectively customer service.

Additionally, these laws would go beyond the issue of delays to address matters like misdirected luggage and overbooking -- things already covered by the laws of common carriage, if not common sense, as outlined in the fine print on your ticket. Should we legislate legroom too? What about seat width and a law covering pillows and blankets? Apparently it's open season on the airlines; how petulant can we get? Well, last year, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York came up with something called the Air Travel Delay Awareness Act of 2006, stipulating that carriers "make available to the public information regarding the delay of a scheduled passenger flight not later than 10 minutes after such information is available."

Sorry, Chuck, but if you feel that an airline hasn't given you the proper information at the precise moment you'd like it, you should take your business to one of its competitors. And if you're that worked up over delays, you should begin by addressing their root causes -- an outmoded ATC system, and airline scheduling practices. In the meantime, if you or anybody else feels that you've been violated, "kidnapped," held against your will, or had your civil rights trampled upon, you are welcome to sue.

Contrary to popular assumption, airlines are not sadists intent on imprisoning their customers. No lone individual at JetBlue or any other airline comes to the sort of decision you might imagine: "Yes, we will lock people in that airplane without food, water or clean lavatories." It doesn't happen that way. It's a chain of errors and a combination of circumstances both within and beyond a carrier's control.

But go read the whole thing. It's good.

There is a skill set out there called logistics, and no where does it come into play more than airlines.

You wnat to know why your delayed plane cant simply go back to the gate? Becaue the gate is gone. Another plane landed, moved into that spot and has to be emptied, cleaned, restocked, refueled, reloaded with passangers and moved the fuck out of the way so another airplane can land and do the same damn thing.

There are not enough gates, there is simply not enough space to give each ariplane its own gate.

Somewhere in th bowles of the airport is a string of officed with stressed out, balding, overweight people who are practically chained to their desks, stomachs full of ulsers, trying to figure out how to fit 30 gallons in a 5 gallon container.

Quite frankly it is a fucking miracle that there are so few problems like this to begin with.

Try to envision 300 lanes landing at variable intervals within the space of 2 or 3 hours, less than 125 gates for them to dock at. Figuring in quick maintence, refuel, cleaning, boarding, and getting them out of the gate fast enough for the other planes to do the same.

Now figure in a few planes that come in 45 minutes early and nowhere to put em, one r two that come in an hour late and throw off your whole schedual. the occasional plane which has to be grounded requireing bringing in a replacment from a different airport a few hours away and the effect it has on a schedual which probably took months to figure out.

Now imagine dealing with that chaos every day.

It is amazing that delays like this dont happen every day 3 or 4 times a day in every single airport.

I don't think the UPS and bank call center analogies are completely fitting. You're not under the complete control of these businesses in the way that you as a passenger are under the control of a flight crew and those who assist and direct it.

The recent incident in Rochester Minnesota had nothing to do with gate unavailability or ground traffic congestion; IIRC, it had to do with an unhelpful airport staff and an airline that failed to escalate the matter as it should.

I can't believe how many people here seem to be in favor of
legalized kidnapping. Once the airlines get their hands on you,
you have no recourse. They'll keep you on the ground in their
aluminum cylinder, with no food or toilets, as long as they care
to.

This new reg isn't addressing something theoretical, its in
response to numerous abuses. The airlines kept saying that they
didn't need regulation or a passenger bill of rights. They said
they could fix the problem themselves. The trouble is, they were
given lots of time to fix things, and they didn't.

The Rochester incident was merely the last straw in a whole
series of incidents. Patrick Smith's column about some of those
incidents was written over two years ago, and the incidents still
continue. The government finally saw that there was no realistic
hope that anything without teeth would stop future abuses.

Regulations may be a blunt instrument, but something was
needed to get the airline's attention.

Ron, get a clue: It's not the airlines.

No aircraft takes off until the FAA-controlled air traffic control system says they can. Period.

If you think that regulating an airline to deal with the shortcomings of the FAA is anything but completely nuts, you're insane.

But you've been trained to think this way. I bet you think that more regulations and laws for you actually are to fight crime and criminals.

Pass another law, problem solved. Right?

Want to fix the problem Ron? Expand the airports so there is one gate for every plane.

And do not allow any airline to place its main or secondary hubs in any state beyond those sitting on the mexican border or the gulf of mexico.
No major connection allowed to take place anywhere but CA, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, and maybe GA

Because so longs as airport admin is playing musical chairs with planes and gate such situations will continue to occur, as long as major hubs are subject to shut down due to snow such situations will contine to occur

Radwaste: Could you describe to me how the FAA caused the
passengers to be denied deplaning in Rochester?

lujlp: I bet, with mabye $250K per plane at stake, the airlines
might invest in some rolling stairs so that they can deplane
people should a storm ground an entire airport's worth of planes.

Both: It's insane to keep the status quo and just hope the
airlines will aquire the will to change. They had years to do
so, along with the threat of legislation, and nothing happened.
The new regulation places the incentive on the people who have
the power to make a change: the airlines. Bad weather happens;
be prepared to deal with it. I doubt you'd stay at a hotel
that leaked when it rained. Even in the desert, it's an
expected occasional contingency.

Personally, I would way rather be on a flight that's cancelled
because it couldn't make it out in three hours than be stuck on a
plane for ten hours on the ground with no food or toilets.

This could be easily solved: For a given airport divide the maximum number of takeoffs and landings for any given day. Then you have a lottery that airline buys the amount of tickets that they need for slots.

The lottery is drawn. If you don't get the slots you need you can trade or buy, at face value, the slots you need. But none of this crap of scheduling all flights at 8, 12, & 6. They are forced into what the airport can handle, not what the airlines want.

Yes, Ron, it's yet another thing Patrick Smith has addressed for us.

You - me - we laymen - are not permitted to deplane other than at a gate, unless escorted by TSA personnel. No TSA agent? No, you can't get off the plane.

You cannot get around this: airlines do what Federal agents tell them to do. The airline does NOT have "the power to make a change".

Where did you get that idea, anyway?

-----

And Jim P: why are you making things up? The number of flights an airport is permitted is also limited by the FAA.

I doubt you'd stay at a hotel
that leaked when it rained.

Right, I wouldn't, and it wouldn't take a federally mandated fine for leaky roofs to keep me away. Just like it shouldn't take a federally mandated fine to keep you away from airlines that don't treat their passengers right.

Radwaste,

I'm not saying that the number of flights is not limited by the FAA. I'm talking about doling that number out on a rational schedule.

You have X number of launches per runway per hour. (Say 10 x 2 runways per hr) And 9 landings on 3 runways per hour).

You force the airlines to accept the schedule, not let them schedule 40 launches between 5-6 when you know minimum separation is for 20 launches

If it is a hub airport, the airline is responsible to schedule the feeder flights to feed into the outbound.

But no airline controls the airport.

Radwaste: your assertion about TSA being needed to deplane would
be much better with some kind of TSA cite. What I see is:

"TSA does not make decisions on whether or not passengers can deplane."

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/expressjet-incident-in-rochester.html

I doubt you'd stay at a hotel
that leaked when it rained.

Right, I wouldn't, and it wouldn't take a federally mandated fine for leaky roofs to keep me away. Just like it shouldn't take a federally mandated fine to keep you away from airlines that don't treat their passengers right.

I wish I could select an airline that treats passengers right. Unfortunately, I cannot. It seems like the airlines are unwilling to compete on good treatment. I wish I had a good alternative to flying, but when I fly I don't have a good alternative. It seems like they have some sort of an agreement not to challenge each other on this...at least not with out jacking the price way up like to business level.

The only one that seems to have made an attempt was the airline that offered more leg room for like $20. I would have jumped on that deal...except for it was only available once when I tried to get, and the basic fare was already about 30% higher then the competition. Frankly, I am only 6ft tall, the extra leg room is nice but not needed....extra width is what is needed.

Let drop the seats from 5 across to 4. To keep the same revenue, prices would have to go say from 300 to 375. Seems reasonable to me. Width goes from 17 inches to 21 with a wider aisle.

Personally, I'd rather pay less and be a bit more squashed. I'm grateful that flying is so cheap, even if it is uncomfortable. I suspect most people agree with me, TFB, and that's why there's no airline out there offering the wider seats at higher prices. I have no doubt they would if the demand was there.

Kishke gets it. Welcome to the marketplace.

Also, all your fellow passengers are dressed, essentially, in pajamas.

Cell phones and television delivery services are like this, too: They're all compelled to cut their margins so close to the bone that none of them offer meaningfully better service...

...to anyone. There's no one Donald Trump can turn to for better cell service, with more courteous operators. All he can do is pay someone minimum wage to deal with Spring or Verizon or AT&T.

Of course it is going to depend on the price difference, but if it is very much I suspect most people would select the cheaper rate over more comfortable, still there are a very significant number of people that would select the comfort. If you follow the travel boards you see people all the time asking for this. Yet, it seems no airline has even tried it. There has been a few all business class lines but they are still a lot more expensive (when I went to Japan it was $700 economy, $8000 business, or $7000 for the all business line and it was only business from LA to Seoul South Korea where I would have to catch an economy connection).

Looking at cel service, there is a whole bunch of options of plans or even pay-as-you go that all target different markets. At least in this area, Veizon offers much better coverage than AT&T, but At&t's data network is a lot faster. There are clearly differences, granted uncouteous operators is probably the same (I have not had to talk to an operator in years). Why has cel phone services (i.e. dropped calls, clarity, etc) gotton better over the years and prices cheapper?

TV delivery has different packages and not all channels are on all services. My Condos had to allow someone to get direct TV (I think) because it had some sports package which included games he could only see with that package with that service.

Flying, I get the same crappy service from every airline. Just my times vary and the costs a bit - but when I book has more influence over the cost than which airline I select (in general).

If it is a market place, why aren't the airlines trying to do something to compete?

> TV delivery has different packages
> and not all channels are
> on all services.

Ask your richest friend to call the office for help with a problem. Ask your poorest friend to phone with the same difficulty; compare narratives. (That last part will go quickly: They'll be identical. "Press one to be a pissed-off motherfucker; press two to be a goddamn unsatisfied customer. As you wait to complain about services you've paid for but not received, we'd like to remind you of even more ways to send money to us for things that you're not likely to enjoy. And we'd like to remind you that if you use our website for help, we'll save all kinds of money on labor, whether your problem gets solved or not."

Unbelievable.

I'll say it again: Airlines do not control the airport. They do not say when they may fly. They do not say where and when their passengers may walk around the airport. They do not set minimum times between departures. They do not set minimum approach distances in the air. They do not set minimum fuel quantities.

But since all you can see is your ticket stub, having missed the armed guards, radars, control towers and the like, you think the pilot and the airline can do what they wish with you.

The term for that is, "not even wrong".

Patrick Smith is an easy read. Go read him.

The minimum separation is set by the FAA. That is why the crash, in NYC, just after 9/11, happened. The FAA then changed the min sep rules.

Right now, the airlines now say we want to launch at 6:00 PM. But the reality is that you can only launch three 737 in a five minutes no matter what the airlines want. Then you need to wait seven minutes to launch two 767-D models. So now you are at 6:07. Then you need to wait five minutes to launch a 747 and a DC-10. It is now 6:12. (And so-on)

You average the separation on the high side. And landings as well. Then from there you say this is the amount you can launch and recover today. That is what the airport can do. The airlines then have to model on the standard(s) by airport. Delta dominates Atlanta from 2-4 pm to limit layovers. Then they dominate LAX 6-8 PM. Southwest has 2-4 PM at LAX and Atlanta 6-8 PM.

The smaller airlines have the choice of long layovers or trade for the positions to concentrate on less encouraged hours.

The point being that you have a choice, but it is being reasonable to all.

Ron: "I can't believe how many people here seem to be in favor of legalized kidnapping."

A delayed plane is 'legalized kidnapping'? Christ, what a moonbat - it might actually be funny if it wasn't in the context of these stupid new laws.

The reason these kinds of stupid harmful laws get passed is because politicians know that it makes looney-tuners like you think that they're "doing something for them" and so helps them gain political support at the expense of, well, everyone. This isn't a problem that needed solving, sh-t happens once in a blue moon, stop crying to government for new regulations every single time something bad happens anywhere.

"Once the airlines get their hands on you,
you have no recourse. They'll keep you on the ground in their aluminum cylinder"

'Get their hands on you'? Their 'aluminum cylinder'? OMW, you're hysterical. I can't figure out if you're mentally ill or just a moron.

"If it is a market place, why aren't the airlines trying to do something to compete? "

What!? You can't be serious. Are you blind, or do you just not fly? I fly regularly, many different airlines, all over the world, and have been doing so for over ten years ... the rapid improvements in the airline industry, and in air fares, and in quality of service, and in how hard they try to compete, have been nothing short of *incredible*, I don't know why people bitch and whine so much - maybe US airlines are particularly bad? They're about the only ones I haven't flown on. In the rest of the world, the state of the airline industry has frankly never been more fantastic for travelers - impressively so, all things considered, it's an incredibly competitive business.

The vast majority of people choose their airline based on cost - a jump from 300 to 375 USD per ticket would trash an airline in no time, because people want cheap tickets and just don't mind being a bit squashed for a relatively short time. The airlines are giving people what they want.

Amazingly enough, the whole problem could have been solved if the airlines had used a little common sense and not kept people in planes for nine hours sitting waiting to take off. Throw in threatening the passengers with fines and arrests for objecting to this treatment and no wonder people are pissed off.